CAR_Public/140829.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 172

                             Headlines


AFFYMAX INC: Seeks Approval of Cal. Securities Suit Settlement
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Longnecker Suit to Proceed as Collective Action
ATLAS AIR: No Ruling Yet on Cert. Bid in Fuel Surcharges Suit
ATLAS AIR: Still Faces Lawsuits in Canadian Provinces

ATTWOOD CORPORATION: Recalls Kayak & Watersports Storage Hangers
AUSTRALIA: Disability Back Pay Class Action to Continue
BELLUS ALC: Woodyard Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
BEST VALUE: Faces "Tarver" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BOMBAY DELI: Faces "Miah" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BRISTOL CARE: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld
BRITA LP: Recalls Children's Water Bottles Due to Laceration
CALIFORNIA: Judgment in "McLean" Case Reversed as to State
CAPITAL ONE: Bid to Dismiss "Davidson" Suit Gets Court Approval
CHEVRON CORP: Misrepresented "Supreme" Fuel Brand, Action Claims

COCA COLA: Misclassified Workers as Managers, Suit Says
COCA COLA: Sept. 26 Case Management Conference in False Ad Suit
COCA COLA: Settles Vitaminwater Deceptive Marketing Class Action
CONEJO MEAT: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CONSTRUCTION CATERING: Florida Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

COOK COUNTY, IL: Up to $560MM Missing From Court, Suit Says
COSCENTRIX LLC: Recalls Candles in Metal Tins Due to Fire Hazard
CREIG NORTHROP: Faces "Wade" Suit Over Kickbacks
CUTLER GROUP: Home Buyers May Not Sue for Implied Warranty Breach
DAIRY FARMERS: Schreiber Gets Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit

DELTA AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
EQT PRODUCTION: 4th Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Rulings in 5 Cases
EXELON CORP: Faces Property Damage Suit for Alleged Negligence
EXELON CORP: ComEd Fails to Get TCPA Violation Suit Junked
EXELON CORP: PHI Faces Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Merger

FACEBOOK INC: Has Four Weeks to Respond to Data Breach Suit
FRANCHISE TAX: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Boggs" Case Affirmed
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Plaintiffs Fight Bankruptcy Stay
GILLETTE CO: Must Donate $6-Mil. Worth of Batteries to Charities
GLOBAL RENT-A-CAR: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims

GRAND KING: Faces "Osorto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
GREEN NRG: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Hoffer" Suit Says
HARVEST C-FOOD: "Angel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HEADWATERS INC: Seeks Approval of Suit Over Stock Grants to CEO
HEADWATERS INC: Ordered to Pay $16.2MM in Suit Related to Adtech

HEADWATERS INC: Eldorado Stone Seeks Judgment in Archstone Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 6 Million Computer Power Cords
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
HSBC NORTH AMERICA: Class Cannot Intervene in "FHFA" Suit
IDENEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Has MoU to Settle Suits Over Merger

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Court Signs Protective Order in Mulligan Suit
INDIANA: DCS Faces "Nunez" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws
INTERLINE BRANDS: Sued Over Plumbing Toilet Connector Defects
INVACARE CORP: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Retirement Fund's Case
JPC EQUESTRIAN: Recalls Stirrup Leathers Due to Fall Hazard

K&G MEN'S: Faces "Hoppens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KEY ENERGY: Sued in S.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Report
L.L. BEAN: Recalls Children's Sweaters Due to Choking Hazard
LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $65.6MM
LENOVO INC: Settles Defective Laptop Class Action for $70 Million

LMM MANAGEMENT: Hamilton Gets Approval to File 3rd Amended Suit
LOVETHOSESHIRTS LLC: Sued in California Over Invasion of Privacy
M/A ELECTRIC: Faces "Senabria" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MASTERCARD INC: Fails to Junk Opt Out Merchant Complaints in US
MASTERCARD INC: Bares Updates on Lawsuits by Canadian Merchants

MASTERCARD INC: Attridge Objects to Cal. Consumer Suit Accord
MASTERCARD INC: "Honor All Cards" Suits Settlement Faces Protests
MASTERCARD INC: ATM Operators Seek to Amend Suit Over Surcharges
MAZDA MOTOR: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Vehicle Defects
MB FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Over Taylor Capital Merger

MCROBERTS PROTECTIVE: Protective Order Entered in "Mirza" Case
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Barnes" Suit Says
MOODY'S CORP: Plaintiffs Want to Revive Claims Over "Cheyne SIV"
MOODY'S CORP: Suit Over "Rhinebridge SIV" Voluntarily Dismissed
MOTORINO EAST: "Escobar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MOUNTAIN ENERGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees' Pension Plan
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Player Objects to $75MM Concussion Accord
NBTY INC: Sued for Lying About Amount of Protein in Supplement
NEST LABS: Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Denied
NETFLIX INC: Court Issues Ruling in Discovery Dispute

NEW GREAT NECK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Federal Claims in "NYSPPSA" Case
OCTAGON INC: "Klein" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
PAM'S BAKERY: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PANASONIC CORP: Colluded in Sale of Capacitors, Suit Claims

PENINIM OF AMERICA: Sued Over Sexual Assault of Jewish Girls
PG&E CORP: Cal. Customers Appeal Nixing of Suit Over Use of Funds
PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "San Jose" Suit Says
PNC FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "White" Suit Denied
PPL CORP: Court Junks RCRA Claims in Cane Run Environmental Suit

PROSPERITY BANCSHARES: Faces "Franco" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
QUEENSLAND: United Firefighers' Union Files Class Action
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement Reached in Celera Securities Suit
RE/MAX GOLD: Faces Suit Over Defective Kitec Aluminum Pipes
S.K. FOODS: Obtains Final Approval of Consumer Suit Settlement

SANDISK CORP: Nov. 14 Certification Hearing in Ritz Camera Suit
SANDISK CORP: SD-3C Denied Rehearing in Antitrust Litigation
SANDISK CORP: SD-3C to Challenge Reversal of Case Dismissal
SANDISK CORP: Cal. Court Consolidates Stock Suit v. Fusion-io
SENECA SAWMILL: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours

SHENGDATECH INC: Mudd & Saidman Dismissed From Securities Case
SOOKK HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
STAMINA GRILL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
STARWOOD HOTELS: Mo. Sup. Ct. Reverses Ruling in "Tolentino" Case
STURM FOODS: Denial of Coffee Lovers Class Certification Reversed

TBC RETAIL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Gordon" Action Claims
TD BANK: Sued Over Failure to Implement Breastfeeding Policies
TYSON FOODS: 10th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in Workers' Suit
UBM LLC: Sued Over Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
VIZIO INC: Recalls to Repair 39 & 42-Inch E-Series Flat Panel TVs

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Litigation
VORNADO AIR: Recalls Electric Space Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
WILHELMINA MODELS: Court Narrows Claims in "Shanklin" Case
WILLIAMSRDM INC: Recalls Microhood Fire Suppressors
WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Homeopathic Products, Suit Claims

WILLIAMS COS: High Court to Hear Lawsuit Over Gas Price Indices
WILLIAMS COS: Lawsuit v. WPZ Over Geismar Incident Continues
WILLIAMS COS: Dismissal of FHRA Claims in Suit v. WAPI Affirmed
WORLD WRESTLING: Alfred Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
XPO LOGISTICS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Pacer Acquisition

YELP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: Port Worker Sues Buck Kreihs et al.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Couple Name 109 Defendants in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal to Plant Insulation Plan Order Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $474-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $88MM Insurance Receivables

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 21,103 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 49,770 Fibro Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $900,000 for Paulus Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Suit v. Crane Co. Set for Reargument
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $4.9MM "Dummitt" Judgment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Had 47 Unresolved Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 730 Active Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 53,000 Exposure Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Tobacco Had 67 Filter Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Co. Suit v. Aqua-Chem Remains Stayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,900 Pending Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,500 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 407 Pending Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Obtains Dismissal of 54 PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Rule on Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Universities Confirms Fibro in Bedrooms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Herts NHS Trust Fined Over Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro to Be Removed From Fire Damaged Church

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Recalls Landfill Mulch Amid Fibro Fears
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Completed at La. Elementary School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anderson Man Gets 3 Years for Fibro Pollution
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Violations Committed at Waterbury Complex
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Reversed in Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Sends School Staff Home
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brothers Jailed for Exposing Workers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Gets Prison Time for Unsafe Fibro Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Finds Improper Fibro Handling in Iberville
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Replacing Equipment After Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Samples of Fibro Found at Irish Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bus Station Demolition Delayed by Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kambah Residents Calls on Gov't for Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cowley Plant Worker Dies After Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Residents Protest Illegal Use of Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Concept School's Chatham Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Awarded GBP175,000 in Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Gives Warning on the Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation Costs Increase With Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Slows Roosevelt Cleanup

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Follows Families' Fears Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE, Chemical Co. Beats PI Injury Claims in Del.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands Suit by Ex-Construction Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Permits Disclosure of Fibro Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Law Firm Donates to State Races

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Fake Cigarettes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Complicate Cafe Fire Situation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Faces Legal Action Over Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Northcott Buildings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Smoker's Award Won't Be Reduced in Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Obtains Partial Dismissal of PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded in Colo. Inmates' Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Refuses to Allow Trial in CERCLA Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Bid to Junk "Bailen" Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Remands Ruling in "Black" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Davis" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Grande" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Plaintiffs Directed to File Status Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in NY PI Suit Withdrawn

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks' Bid to Junk NY PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Insulation, Insurers Stipulate on Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Modifies Order in "Lovelace" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Partially Flips Ruling in CFA Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Appeal in Powell Coverage Suit Junked

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Wood" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 19 Cos. Dismissed as Defendants in Ill. PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Macquarie Fibro Policy Slated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado AG Fines Firms for Mishandling Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lamesa School Board Approved Abatement Bid

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Insulation to Be Removed From School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Sufferer Paid GBP275,000 by Devon Council
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queanbeyan Residents Warned on Mr. Fluffy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Store Fibro Removal to Cost $166,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Gets $3BB in Liberty Mutual Transfer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case Remanded for Failing to Provide NASA Specs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Being Removed from Police Offices
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Rip Up Fibro in School Carpet
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Problem Found in Old Jamrich Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Judge Nixes Loss of Consortium Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Ruling Holds Silver Lining for Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partner Calls for More Research on Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Complaint at Restaurant Has No Grounds
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Bldg. Set for Demolition Has Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officials Ask About Fibro in Demolition Projects

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Reaches Reinsurance Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monticello Gets Bid to Remove Fibro Pile
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Stalls Highway Detour Construction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Incorrect Fibro Removal Causes Concern
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labourer Afflicted with Fibro-Related Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anger Increases Over Forgotten NSW Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Forces Closure of School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Family Pleas Co-Workers to Come Forward
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Elementary Schools Removed Fibro Tiles
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Residents Evacuated Due to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Retained Jurisdiction Over Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Spend Extra After Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Prospect School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County's Fibro Docket Lightens
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Berwick Council Approves Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chester City Council Debates Fibro Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serial Fibro Dumper to Pay Fines Until 2072
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probes Disposal of Hazardous Material
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Puts State Scrutiny on Site Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trades Union Forced ACT Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Every Exposure" Theory Rejected in La. Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Oversees Demolition of Contaminated Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Cites Lawyer for Permitting Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Report Sparks Action in Donnybrook
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Worker Clueless on Fibro Dangers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Springfield Mill Fire Debris May Contain Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Gov't Failed to Protect Workers From Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vietnam Considers Ban on Fibro in Boards
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Shuts Down Fraternity House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Evacuates Fishtown School Over Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Firm Build Exec Gets Prison for Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Decision Enforces Right to Access
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Receives GBP95,000 Fibro Pay-Out
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Library Demolition Delayed By Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sophisticated User Revives Goodyear Claim


                            *********


AFFYMAX INC: Seeks Approval of Cal. Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affymax, Inc. is seeking approval of a settlement reached in a
consolidated securities suit filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On February 27, 2013, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company, certain
of its officers, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Takeda Global Research &
Development Center, Inc. A second complaint naming the same
defendants was filed on March 6, 2013. On May 2, 2013, the
securities class action complaint that was filed on February 27,
2013 was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.  On May 21, 2013,
the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the remaining securities
class action complaint that had been filed on March 6, 2013.  On
July 22, 2013, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company, naming
as defendants the Company and certain of its former officers.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the defendants regarding OMONTYS,
the Company's business practices, financial projections and other
disclosures between August 8, 2012 and February 22, 2013, or the
Class Period.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the Class
Period and seeks damages, costs and expenses and such other relief
as determined by the Court.  On September 20, 2013, the Company
and the individual defendants (collectively, "Defendants") filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  On November
19, 2013, the plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion to
dismiss and on December 19, 2013, Defendants filed their reply in
support of their motion to dismiss.  The hearing on the motion to
dismiss occurred on January 15, 2014.  On January 21, 2014, the
Court issued its order granting the motion to dismiss regarding
violations of Section 20(a) against all Defendants and it granted
the motion to dismiss in part, denying the motion to dismiss in
part, and providing plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend the
complaint.   On February 18, 2014, the Court, pursuant to a
stipulation by the parties, stayed the litigation for ninety days
to allow the parties to conduct settlement discussions. On July 2,
2014, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement of the
securities class action suit. The Stipulation, which is subject to
court approval, provides in part for a settlement payment of $6.5
million and the dismissal of all claims against the defendants in
connection with the securities class action suit. The $6.5 million
settlement payment, less any remaining retention at the time of
payment, which is estimated to be less than $100,000, will be paid
by the Company's insurance provider under its insurance policy. On
July 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement. The preliminary approval hearing was set for
August 27, 2014.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. on Aug. 25 disclosed that on August 22,
2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California dismissed with prejudice the shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in November 2012 by lead Plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Police & Fire Retirement System against the
Company, President and CEO Thomas M. Prescott, and previous CFO
Kenneth B. Arola.  The dismissal with prejudice follows the
District Court's previous dismissal of Plaintiff's first amended
complaint for failure to state a claim on December 9, 2013.
Plaintiff has 30 days to appeal the District Court's ruling.

According to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police &
Fire Retirement System filed on November 28, 2012, a lawsuit
against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr.
Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief
Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action"). On July
11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the same
defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The
amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the
purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate
goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011
acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorney's fees. On December 9,
2013, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave
for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed
a second amended complaint on January 8, 2014 on behalf of the
same purported class. The second amended complaint states the same
claims as the first amended complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on February 7, 2014.  On June 12, 2014, the Court held a hearing
on the motion and took the matter under submission.

Align Technology -- http://www.aligntech.com-- designs,
manufactures and markets the Invisalign(R) system, which provides
dental professionals with a range of treatment options for adults
and teenagers.  Align also offers the iTero 3D digital scanning
system and services for orthodontic and restorative dentistry.
Align was founded in March 1997 and received FDA clearance to
market the Invisalign system in 1998.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Longnecker Suit to Proceed as Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in JONATHAN LONGNECKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-0069-
HRH, (D. Ariz.), moved for conditional certification of a
collective action.

In an order dated August 18, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/RF3Hryfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Russel Holland
granted in part and denied in part the motion to proceed as a
collective action.

"The court will conditionally certify a collective action but the
proposed class is limited to current and former Phoenix call
center employees who were hired prior to June 1, 2003 and with a
primary job function of handling phone calls with customers,
vendors, and the public," ruled Judge Holland.

The Court ordered parties to meet and confer about the notice that
should be issued and to submit a jointly proposed notice or any
disagreements as to the notice on or before September 2, 2014. On
or before September 9, 2014, defendants must provide a list of the
names and addresses of all Phoenix call center employees who meet
the class definition.

Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-reply was denied.

Jonathan Longnecker, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P Yezbak,
III -- yezbak@yezbaklaw.com -- Yezbak Law Offices, David William
Ricksecker -- David@wmlaborlaw.com -- Woodley & McGillivary,
Kaitlyn Alissa Redfield-Ortiz -- kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com --
Lubin & Enoch PC, Nicholas Jason Enoch -- nick@lubinandenoch.com
-- Lubin & Enoch PC & Theodore Reid Coploff, Woodley &
McGillivary.

Erandi Acevedo, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P Yezbak, III,
Yezbak Law Offices, David William Ricksecker, Woodley &
McGillivary, Kaitlyn Alissa Redfield-Ortiz, Lubin & Enoch PC,
Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC & Theodore Reid Coploff,
Woodley & McGillivary.

Jennifer Flynn, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P Yezbak, III,
Yezbak Law Offices, David William Ricksecker, Woodley &
McGillivary, Kaitlyn Alissa Redfield-Ortiz, Lubin & Enoch PC,
Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC & Theodore Reid Coploff,
Woodley & McGillivary.

Bonita Kathol, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P Yezbak, III,
Yezbak Law Offices, David William Ricksecker, Woodley &
McGillivary, Kaitlyn Alissa Redfield-Ortiz, Lubin & Enoch PC,
Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC & Theodore Reid Coploff,
Woodley & McGillivary.

Janet Seitz, Plaintiff, represented by Charles P Yezbak, III,
Yezbak Law Offices, David William Ricksecker, Woodley &
McGillivary, Kaitlyn Alissa Redfield-Ortiz, Lubin & Enoch PC,
Nicholas Jason Enoch, Lubin & Enoch PC & Theodore Reid Coploff,
Woodley & McGillivary.

American Express Company, Defendant, represented by Dawn L
Dauphine -- ddauphine@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA, Pamela S
Richardson -- prichardson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Richard G Rosenblatt, rrosenblatt@morganleweis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sharon A Lisitzky,
slisitzky@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
William J Maledon -- wjmaledon@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA &
August W Heckman, III -- aheckman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP.

Amex Card Services Company, Defendant, represented by Dawn L
Dauphine, Osborn Maledon PA, Pamela S Richardson, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Richard G Rosenblatt, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Sharon A Lisitzky, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, William J Maledon,
Osborn Maledon PA & August W Heckman, III, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP.


ATLAS AIR: No Ruling Yet on Cert. Bid in Fuel Surcharges Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York is still to decide whether or not to certify a suit alleging
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. is manipulating fuel
surcharges, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In 2010, Old Polar entered into an agreement with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") to resolve issues
relating to the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning
alleged manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and
other rate components for air cargo services (the "DOJ
Investigation").

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws. The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.
In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to 2004, the date on which the Company and Old Polar emerged
from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented to the
injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court entered an
order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company claims arising
prior to 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted on April 13, 2011. There was
substantial pretrial written discovery and document production,
and a number of depositions were taken. A court hearing on whether
or not to certify the case as a class action was held in October
2013 and oral arguments were held in November 2013. We are unable
to reasonably predict the court's ruling or the ultimate outcome
of the litigation.


ATLAS AIR: Still Faces Lawsuits in Canadian Provinces
-----------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. continues to face purported
civil class actions in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario
and Quebec, Canada, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company, Old Polar and a number of other cargo carriers have
also been named as defendants in civil class action suits in the
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, Canada that are
substantially similar to the class action suits in the United
States. The plaintiffs in the British Columbia case have indicated
they do not intend to pursue their lawsuit against the Company and
Old Polar. A court hearing on whether to certify the case as a
class action is expected to be held later this year.


ATTWOOD CORPORATION: Recalls Kayak & Watersports Storage Hangers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Attwood Corporation of Lowell, Mich., announced a voluntary recall
of 10,000 Kayak and Watersports Storage Hanger.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The length adjustment buckles release unexpectedly, causing the
item being stored to fall and injure people nearby

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves kayak and watersports storage hangers sold as
a pair of blue and black fabric straps that measure approximately
1 inch wide and 84 inches long when unbuckled.  The straps include
a plastic snap buckle to adjust the length and a plastic-coated
steel S-hook attachment for hanging.  Model number 11917-6 is
located on the back of the retail package near the barcode.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart, Mills Farm Fleet stores, marine dealers nationwide and
online at Walmart from Jan. 2014 to July 2014 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled storage
hangers and return them to Attwood or the store where the item was
purchased for a full refund or replacement.


AUSTRALIA: Disability Back Pay Class Action to Continue
-------------------------------------------------------
Helen Davidson, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class
action against the government over back pay allegedly owed to
about 10,000 workers with an intellectual disability will
continue, regardless of whether the Senate passes a bill
establishing a repayment scheme, because lawyers representing the
employees claim it will only pay around half of what's owed.

The Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (Bswat), assessed wages
for around half of the employees working in government supported
Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs) -- previously known as
sheltered workshops.

The Bswat was suspended after a 2012 federal court case found two
people had been discriminated against by the system, resulting in
reduced wages of as little as $1 an hour.

After an unsuccessful appeal to the high court the government
applied to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for a
three-year exemption from the disability discrimination act in
order to establish a replacement for Bswat.  It was given one
year.

The bill before the senate seeks to establish a payment scheme for
all eligible employees who suffered economic loss after being paid
a pro-rata wage assessed using the Bswat.

"The Australian government established the payment scheme to give
reassurance to supported employees, and their families and carers,
by removing a perceived potential liability for ADEs for alleged
disability employment discrimination," said the department of
social services in its submission to a senate committee hearing
last week.

The full cost of the scheme depends on how many people apply for a
payment, and are subsequently successful.  Payments will be 50% of
the difference between what they were paid and a reassessed wage
based on just one of two Bswat assessment components.  It ignores
the controversial component which led to the wage reductions.

A class action suit by the Maurice Blackburn law firm seeks to
recover 100% of this difference.

One of the firm's lawyers, Josh Bornstein, who is representing the
class action, told Guardian Australia that since the 2012 court
decision the federal government has been "contorting and twisting
and turning to try and find a way of avoiding paying the back pay
and avoiding paying these people legally."

"This is about a bill which is designed to shortchange the lowest
paid workers in the country," said Mr. Bornstein.

"I've got a client who's on less than $1 an hour, others are on
$3-4 an hour.  All had wages severely reduced by the imposition of
this system in 2003," he said.

Elizabeth Nojin, whose son Michael is one of the two successful
complainants in the 2012 case, told the senate committee hearing
she strenuously objects to the bill.

Ms. Nojin wrote in her submission the bill was unnecessary "as
there has been a decision saying that Bswat is discriminatory and
therefore I believe full compensation of the underpayment of wages
should be paid."  She also said the power of the department
secretary to appoint a nominee to act on behalf of employees, was
a conflict of interest.

Mr. Bornstein said this power was a "machiavellian trick" in the
legislation.

Supporters of the bill say it shows the government is accepting
liability for the wrongly assessed payments, and is providing
certainty for current and former ADE employees.

It's seen as providing protection to ADEs which would be unable to
continue operating if they were made to repay the employees as a
result of a successful class action.

"That's important because the only reason that ADEs use the Bswat
is that it came with a government guarantee," Dr. Ken Baker, chief
executive of the National Disability Services, told Guardian
Australia.

"All the employer is doing is implementing the wage determined by
government. I think it's absolutely right that the government
accepts the liability," said Baker.

Bornstein dismissed the concerns that without the scheme ADEs
could be held liable for the back pay and go out of business,
since the back pay is coming from the government.

"Despite some chest beating we haven't yet seen any credible
evidence that anyone is going to go bankrupt or cease employing
people," he said.

"It was an opportunity for the federal government to put that
before the AHRC when it made its exempt application but it didn't
do that . . . there are ADEs that are paying people properly and
not tipping over."

The deputy leader of the Greens, Adam Bandt, said in July that the
bill is "nothing more than an attempt to derail this class action
and disadvantage up to 10,000 workers with a disability in this
country who are hoping for justice."

Independent senator Nick Xenophon said he would wait to see the
community affairs report before deciding how he would vote and
Palmer United Party senator Jacquie Lambie said she was still
forming a position on the bill.


BELLUS ALC: Woodyard Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge S. James Otero granted final approval of a
settlement in the case captioned ASHLEY WOODYARD, Plaintiff, v.
BELLUS ALC ACQUISITION, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-
05977 SJO (AGRX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Settlement Class is finally approved and certified as a class
for purposes of settlement of the action. The Court also approved
Daniel F. Gaines and Alex P. Katofsky of Gaines & Gaines, APLC as
Class Counsel and approved Ashley Woodyard as the Class
Representative.

The Court concluded that the payment of $2,000 to Class
Representative Ashley Woodyard, as an Enhancement Award;
$48,305.69 to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, and $8,637.96 to
Class Counsel for costs and expenses associated with the Action;
and $14,500 for the fees and expenses of the Claims Administrator,
are fair and reasonable. The Court gave final approval to and
ordered that the payment of these amounts be paid out of the
Maximum Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of
the Agreement.

A copy of Judge Otero's August 18, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/qL2jGv from Leagle.com.

Ashley Woodyard, Plaintiff, represented by Roman Otkupman --
roman@olfla.com -- Otkupman Law Firm ALC.

Bellus ALC of California LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura E
Hayward -- lhayward@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Rod M
Fliegel -- rfliegel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.

American Laser Skincare LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura E
Hayward, Littler Mendelson PC & Rod M Fliegel, Littler Mendelson
PC.


BEST VALUE: Faces "Tarver" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Tarver, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Value Pharmacy, LLC, and Avinash
Rachmale, Case No. 2:14-cv-13256 (E.D. Mich., August 21, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Best Value Pharmacy, LLC, is owned by Avinash Rachmale, and is
engaged in the business of ordering, refilling, and selling
medicine to patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Thompson, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0030
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
              jthompson@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Office: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


BOMBAY DELI: Faces "Miah" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed Miah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. Bombay Deli & Tandoori Restaurant, Inc., Abdul Awal,
in his individual and professional capacities, and Mohammed Qadir,
in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-
06779 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation for all hours worked.

Bombay Deli & Tandoori Restaurant, Inc. owns and operates a
restaurant with its principal place of business located at 367 W.
36th Street, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory N. Filosa, Esq.
      FILOSA LAW FIRMS, PLLC
      111 John Street, Suite 2510
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212)256-1780
      E-mail: gfilosa@filosalaw.com


BRISTOL CARE: Denial of Bid to Compel Arbitration Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
In Carla Baker, Respondent, v. Bristol Care, Inc., d/b/a Bristol
Manor, and David Furnell, Appellants, NO. SC 93451, Bristol Care
Inc. and David Furnell appeal an order overruling their motion to
compel arbitration. They contend that the circuit court erred by
not compelling arbitration because the arbitration agreement
between Bristol and its employee, Carla Baker, is valid and
enforceable.

Bristol terminated Ms. Baker from her position as administrator of
the long-term care facility. Baker filed a class action lawsuit
against Appellants seeking compensation for allegedly unpaid
overtime hours. Appellants filed a motion to compel arbitration.
The circuit court overruled the motion. This appeal followed.

According to Judge Richard B. Teitelman of the Supreme Court of
Missouri, En Banc, the Court affirms the circuit court's order
because there was no consideration to create a valid arbitration
agreement. First, says the Court, Ms. Baker's continued at-will
employment does not provide consideration for the arbitration
agreement. Second, the fact that Bristol retroactively could
modify, amend or revoke the agreement means that Bristol's promise
to arbitrate is illusory and does not constitute consideration for
Ms. Baker's agreement to arbitrate, he concluded.

A copy of Judge Teitelman's on August 19, 2014 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/ffH1w5 from Leagle.com.


BRITA LP: Recalls Children's Water Bottles Due to Laceration
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BRITA LP of Oakland, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about
242,500 Brita hard-sided water filter bottle for kids.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The lid can break into pieces with sharp points, posing a
laceration hazard

Brita has received 35 reports of lids breaking or cracking.  No
injuries have been reported.

The four recalled children's water bottles have popular cartoon
characters on a hard-sided plastic bottle.  Characters and bottle
colors include Dora the Explorer, violet; Hello Kitty, pink;
SpongeBob Square Pants, blue; and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,
green.  The bottles stand 6 inches tall, hold 15 ounces of liquid,
have white lids that screw off and have fold-up straws and filters
that sit inside the straw below the lid.  Each bottle bears a
Brita logo and features the image of a popular children's cartoon
character.  The removable plastic wrap on the bottle at time of
purchase has the model number BB07 and the following UPC codes:
60258-35883 on the Dora the Explorer, 60258-35914 on the Hello
Kitty, 60258-35880 on the SpongeBob Square Pants and 60258-35882
on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/qiTBp1

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Alaska Housewares, Associated Food Stores, Bartell Drug, C&S
Wholesale Grocers, Quidsi, Royal Ahold, Shopko, Target, US Navy
Exchange, Walmart Stores, and online at Amazon, Drugstore and
Target.  Hello Kitty bottles were sold from Feb. 2014 through July
2014.  Dora the Explorer, SpongeBob Square Pants and Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles bottles were sold from June 2013 through July
2014.  The bottles sold for about $13 to $19.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water bottles
and contact Brita to receive a postage-paid shipping package to
return the bottles for a full refund.


CALIFORNIA: Judgment in "McLean" Case Reversed as to State
----------------------------------------------------------
Janis McLean, a retired deputy attorney general, appealed from a
judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained the demurrer
of defendants the State of California and the California State
Controller's Office, to her class action seeking waiting time
penalties under California Labor Code section 203 for the failure
to comply with the prompt payment requirements of California Labor
Code Section 202. She contends the trial court erred in ruling
that the term "quits" in sections 202 and 203 does not apply to
employees who quit to retire.

In an opinion dated August 19, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/KKQBrIfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
California, Third District, Sacramento, held that in the context
of sections 202 and 203, it agrees with McLean that requirements
applying to employees who quit also apply to employees who quit to
retire.  The Calif. Appeals Court, therefore, reverses the
judgment as to the State of California.  However, because it holds
that it was unnecessary to name the California State Controller's
Office as a defendant, it affirms the judgment of dismissal as to
the controller's office.

The matter is remanded for further proceedings.

The case is JANIS S. McLEAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE OF
CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. C074515.

Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, William A. Kershaw --
wkershaw@kcrlegal.com -- Lyle W. Cook -- lcook@kcrlegal.com -- and
Stuart C. Talley -- stalley@kcrlegal.com -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

The Law Offices of Brooks Ellison and Patrick J. Whalen for
California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing
Officers in State Employment as Amicus Curiae for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Fiel D. Tigno, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, and William T. Darden, Deputy Attorney
General, for Defendants and Respondents..


CAPITAL ONE: Bid to Dismiss "Davidson" Suit Gets Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH DAVIDSON, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff, v.
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant, NO. 1:13-CV-2307-WSD-ECS,
(N.D. Ga.) came before the Court on Magistrate Judge E. Clayton
Scofield's Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss be denied and that Plaintiff be given 20 days
after the date of the Court's order to renew his motion for class
certification. The Court also considered Defendant's Motion for
Hearing regarding its Objection to the R&R and its Motion for
Leave to File Reply in Support of Objection, and Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class.

In an opinion and order dated August 18, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/pQQ8D9from Leagle.com, District Judge
William S. Duffey, Jr., concluded that Plaintiff has not plausibly
alleged that Defendant is a "debt collector" subject to liability
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Accordingly, the
Court held that Defendant's objections to Magistrate Judge
Scofield's Final Report and Recommendation are sustained;
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted; Defendant's Motion for
Hearing and Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Objection
are denied; and Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied as
moot.

Keith Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine A. Ceko --
cceko@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs & Latturner & Goodwin, LLC,
Cathleen M. Combs -- ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs &
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC & E. Talley Gray, Law Offices of E.
Talley Gray.

Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Ziemann -- jziemann@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP & Joshua Howard
Threadcraft -- joshua.threadcraft@burr.com -- Burr & Forman LLP.


CHEVRON CORP: Misrepresented "Supreme" Fuel Brand, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Luis Ortega, individually and on Behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Chevron Corporation, and Chevron Capital
Corporation which will do business in California as Chevrontexaco
Capital Corporation, and Chevrontexaco Foundation, Case No. 4:14-
cv-02416 (S.D. Tex., August 21, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
materially misrepresented the quality and purity of their Supreme
fuel, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff and Class members.

The Defendants materially misrepresented the quality and purity of
their Supreme fuel, thereby causing damage to Plaintiff and Class
members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN
      626 N.E. First Street
      Gainesville, Fl 32601
      Telephone: (352) 376-7650
      Facsimile: (352) 374-7133
      E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com

         - and -

      Stuart C. Yoes, Esq.
      THE YOES LAW FIRM, LLP
      3535 Calder Avenue, Suite 235
      Beaumont, TX 77706
      Telephone: (409) 833-2352
      Facsimile: (409) 838-5577
      E-mail: scy@yoeslawfirm.com


COCA COLA: Misclassified Workers as Managers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles' Coca-Cola bottling factory stiffs warehouse workers
of overtime by misclassifying them as managers, though they have
no such duties, a class action claims in Superior Court, reports
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Gabriel Rodriguez sued BCI Coca-Cola Bottling
Company of Los Angeles on August 22, 2014.  Rodriguez claims he
worked for Coca-Cola from October 2012 to February this year.

In his 38-page complaint for unfair competition and violation of
California labor laws, Rodriguez claims that he and other workers
are misclassified as salaried "warehouse supervisors" so Coca-Cola
can avoid paying them overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees.

Rodriguez claims he had almost no managerial responsibilities and
was a supervisor "in name only."

"Warehouse supervisors in performing these ongoing day-to-day,
non-exempt and non-managerial tasks had only a minimal role in
supervising employees and had no authority to make employment-
related decisions relating to defendant's employees," the lawsuit
states.

Rodriguez says his duties include inventory checks, pallet and
load inspections, data entry and quality and safety control.  He
claims he should have been paid overtime for those "non-exempt"
tasks.

As well as failing to pay the misclassified workers overtime for
hours more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, Coca-Cola does
not give workers meal and rest breaks, Rodriguez adds.

He seeks an injunction and damages, penalties and costs.

Coca-Cola's media relations department in Atlanta could not be
reached after business hours on August 22, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com


COCA COLA: Sept. 26 Case Management Conference in False Ad Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola must face claims that it falsely advertises its
signature drink as having no artificial flavors or chemical
preservatives, though it contains phosphoric acid, which might be
both, reports Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden hope to represent a class
against The Coca-Cola Co. and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc.

Though Coke labels state that the soft drink contains neither
artificial flavors nor preservatives, consumers say phosphoric
acid gives the drink its signature tartness and flavor.  Since
this ingredient qualifies as both an artificial flavor and
chemical preservative, it must be listed as such on the label,
according to the complaint.

Coca-Cola disputes whether phosphoric acid qualifies as an
artificial flavor or preservative "under the applicable
regulations."  Arguing that the claims against it are pre-empted
and that relief cannot be granted, Coca-Cola moved to dismiss all
causes of action, which include unfair competition, false
advertising and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

Advancing some claims on August 21, 2014, U.S. District Judge
Jeffrey White issued a mixed-bag ruling on August 21 that offered
both parties some relief.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines artificial flavors
as ingredients included specifically to add flavor and which are
not derived from natural sources like fruit and vegetable juice,
plant materials, or dairy products, among other things.  Foods are
considered mislabeled under California's Sherman Laws and the
federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act if they contain artificial
ingredients without including this information on the label.

Though Coca-Cola argued that phosphoric acid is not on the list of
artificial flavors and therefore does not qualify as one, White
pointed out that that "these lists are not exhaustive" and that
"the absence of phosphoric acid on these lists does not mean that
the FDA has made a finding that phosphoric acid is not an
artificial flavor."

The court also found that many artificial flavors are added to
give a food or drink a specific flavor or smell, but that the
absence of this function does not automatically distinguish a
chemical from artificial flavors.

"Neither plaintiffs nor defendants contend that the Coke label
makes any direct or indirect representation with respect to the
primary recognizable flavor," White wrote.  "Accordingly, this
regulation, and the authority construing it, is inapplicable."

The court also found it premature to dismiss the case on the
possibility that claims about artificial-flavor or chemical-
preservative characterizations are pre-empted.

White additionally found that the plaintiffs "sufficiently plead
that they did not know that phosphoric acid was an artificial
flavor or a chemical preservative, that they would not have
purchased Coke if they had known it contained artificial flavoring
and/or a chemical preservative, and that they relied on Coke's
labels."

For the breach of implied merchantability claims to succeed,
however, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a product "did not
possess even the most basic degree of fitness for ordinary use,"
the ruling states.

The plaintiffs "fail to cite to any authority demonstrating a mere
alleged labeling violation, in the absence of any allegation
regarding the product's basic degree of fitness for ordinary use,
is sufficient to state a claim for breach of implied warranty,"
White wrote.  This claim may be amended, but White declined to set
a deadline for such revisions since it is possible that the action
may be consolidated with similar cases.  The next case management
conference is set for Sept. 26.

White concluded with a warning for the class attorneys that the
court will scrutinize any request for attorneys' fees because they
have spent "additional unnecessary hours" on the case, such as
filing a "fifteen page brief along with voluminous exhibits
addressing issues that went far beyond the legal application of
the Supreme Court's case" when ordered to provide supplemental
briefings.

Paul Merrit filed a state court class action in October 2013
advancing similar accusations that Coca-Cola's mislabeled Coke as
all-natural despite the presence of phosphoric acid, which he says
is an artificial flavor and a chemical preservative.

Ronald Sowizrol is the lead plaintiff in a federal class action
filed this past March, claiming that Coca-Cola mislead consumers
into believing that Coke can be part of a kid's healthy diet by
claiming the drink contains no artificial flavoring even though it
contains phosphoric acid.

The case is George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden v. The Coca-Cola
Company and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-
03990-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


COCA COLA: Settles Vitaminwater Deceptive Marketing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a lawsuit
against the Coca Cola Company and Energy Brands Inc. alleging
Glaceau Vitaminwater was deceptively marketed has been settled.

The settlement will include changes to Vitaminwater's labeling and
marketing, which will benefit all class members equally, according
to a settlement document filed Aug. 5 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

Mediation was held April 15 and 16 and, during the months
preceding the mediation, the parties spoke and corresponded in an
effort to narrow the issues for settlement, according to the
document.

The settlement class consists of five settlement subclasses: a
Florida class, Illinois class, Missouri class, Ohio class and a
Virgin Islands class for all persons who purchased the product in
the five locations since Jan. 1, 2003.

"Plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel believe that the injunctive
relief obtained by this settlement is an excellent result and are
satisfied that the proposed settlement is within the range of what
might be found fair, reasonable and adequate," the settlement
documents say.

If the settlement receives court approval, the defendants have
agreed to state the amount of calories per bottle of Vitaminwater
on the principal display panel.

The defendants also would no longer state in marketing that
"vitamins + water -- what's in your hand," "vitamins + water --
all you need, Vitamin water is "specifically formulated to support
optimal metabolic function with antioxidants that may reduce the
risk of chronic disease and vitamins necessary for the general and
utilization of energy from  food," as well as other statements.

The settlement is adequate because there is no conflict among the
plaintiffs and the class, and the plaintiffs' attorneys are
qualified and experienced, the document states.

The class actions were filed in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Missouri
and the Virgin Islands by Dave Volz, Ahmed Khaleel, Nicholas
Armada, Scott Cook, Stephanie Bridges and Juan Squiabro and were
consolidated in 2011 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The plaintiffs claimed the defendants' Vitaminwater name is
misleading and that several of its flavors contain negligible
amounts of fruit juice and is predominantly made up of water and
sugar.

The defendants' misrepresentations about Vitaminwater bombard
consumers with a message that the "heavily fortified, sugar-
sweetened product is healthy and explicitly suggest that the
product is only 'vitamins + water' when, in fact, it is fortified
sugar water that contributes to weight gain, diabetes and
obesity," the complaint states.

Class counsel shall make an application to the court for an award
of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the amount of no more
than $1.2 million.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Dora Lizette
Irizarry.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York case
number: 1:11-md-02215


CONEJO MEAT: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Eduardo Valdez Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Conejo Meat Corp., Kari Meat Corp.,
Andres Ferreira, and John Does #1-34, jointly and severally, Case
No. 1:14-cv-04963 (E.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime premiums for working
over 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants operate two of approximately 36 grocery stores
owned by the America's Food Basket chain that operates
supermarkets throughout the Northeast and Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


CONSTRUCTION CATERING: Florida Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Delgado and other similarly situated individuals v.
Construction Catering, Inc. and Esteban Bencomo, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23076 (S.D. Fla., August 20, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Construction Catering, Inc. provides catering services in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Up to $560MM Missing From Court, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that between $340 million and $560 million in fees collected from
Cook County Circuit Court litigants in the past decade are
unaccounted for, taxpayers claim in a class action, seeking a
court-ordered audit of the clerk's office.

Lead plaintiff Mark Schacht, M.D., on behalf of Cook County
taxpayers, sued the President of the Cook County Board Toni
Preckwinkle, 17 Cook County Commissioners, and Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Cook County Dorothy Brown, on August 22, 2014, in
Cook County Court.

"Plaintiffs seek to compel the County and the Clerk to provide
audits of the office of the Clerk as required by 705 ILCD
105/27.8," the complaint begins.  "The financial reports presented
by the County to the public and to the Administrative Office of
the Illinois Courts do not present audits completed in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards and
generally accepted auditing standards; instead, the financial
reports accepted from the Clerk, published by the County, and
supplied to the AOIC reveal a glaring failure to properly account
for hundreds of millions of dollars of court funds collected from
litigants."

The Clerk's Office collects nearly $200 million per year in fees
from litigants with cases pending in Cook Country Circuit Court,
according to the complaint.  But 15 percent to 23 percent of that
money is not accounted for in the clerk's financial reports, the
taxpayers claim.

"Plaintiffs' estimate of the magnitude of the funds not reported
by the Clerk and the County ranges from $340,716,782 to
$563,268,327 from 2001 through 2012," the complaint states.

The clerk collects certain fees earmarked for specific purposes,
such as document storage and security.  However, "the reported
receipts contain material inconsistencies for accounts that, under
established law and reported collection practices, should not be
inconsistent.  In the context of the Count Automation Fund and the
Document Storage Fund, litigants were required to make payments to
both funds at the same time, in the same manner of cases and in
the same amounts, but a comparison of reported receipts for Court
Automation and Document Storage reveals substantial differences
between accounts that cannot be explained," according to the
complaint.

"More significantly, a comparison of reported receipts for all
five special-purpose funds with the reported case volumes in the
Circuit Court of Cook County establishes an astounding discrepancy
between the receipts reported and the receipts expected under
operation of law.  That discrepancy, for the twelve years analyzed
in this complaint, measures in the hundreds of millions of
dollars."

Plaintiffs say these and other substantial inconsistencies in the
clerk's financial reports require a proper audit.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Novoselsky, Esq.
          DAVID A. NOVOSELSKY & ASSOCIATES
          120 North Lasalle, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-8930
          Facsimile: (312) 346-9453


COSCENTRIX LLC: Recalls Candles in Metal Tins Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CoScentrix, of Carson, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 126,000 DD Brand Tin Candles.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The candle's high flame can ignite the surface of the wax and the
polymer coating on the tin-plated container, posing a fire hazard.

CoScentrix has received two reports of the candle's surface
igniting and one report of minor property damage.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves 4-ounce DD branded candles sold in a round
metal tin with a metal lid.  The single wick candles are 2.75
inches wide by 2 inches high and were sold in 35 fragrances and
colors of wax. A "DD" logo is embossed atop the metal lid.  The
candle fragrance is printed on a label affixed to the outside of
the tin.  A label on the underside of the tin is marked "$5.99"
and has the SKU and batch number. Candles included in the recall
have these SKU numbers:

#195156 -- Smoke Away
#517060 -- Spiced Raisin Cake
#517417 -- Frosted Forest
#518886 -- Holly Berry
#524058 -- Spicy Currant
#526970 -- Sugar Plum
#534628 -- Celebration
#540559 -- Winter Blossom
#546333 -- Vanilla Toddy
#763979 -- Autumn Moonlight
#764126 -- Fern Leaf
#764720 -- Sea Spa
#765891 -- Eucalyptus Verbena
#766188 -- French Berries
#767434 -- Italian Linen
#779405 -- Lavender & Sage
#782136 -- Clementine & Mango
#783910 -- Spiced Amber
#785444 -- Grapefruit & Cinnamon
#787473 -- Pink Pepper
#792978 -- Beach Get-A-Way
#798389 -- Southern Magnolia
#798546 -- Spring Bouquet
#804492 -- Lemonseed & Parsley
#804526 -- Cinnamon Embers
#807990 -- Tuscan Harvest
#808006 -- Vanilla Orchid
#808048 -- Vintage Luxe
#819417 -- Mulberry Apple
#826776 -- Bamboo Jasmine
#832436 -- Aged Driftwood
#835348 -- Parisian Garden
#835702 -- Summer Sunshine
#840579 -- Roasted Pear
#841080 -- Cashmere Petals

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Sl4G1H

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
exclusively at Hobby Lobby stores nationwide and online at
HobbyLobby.com from June 2014 through July 2014 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and return
them to the nearest Hobby Lobby.  Consumers with a receipt will
receive a full refund, without a receipt a store credit will be
issued.  Online purchasers should contact CoScentrix for
instructions on returning the product.


CREIG NORTHROP: Faces "Wade" Suit Over Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------
Nancy Wade and Janice Rulli v. The Creig Northrop Team, P.C.,
Creighton E. Northrop III, Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc., The
Corporation Trust, Inc., Carla J. Northrop, Mary A. Calder-
Sherrock, Lakeview Title Company, Inc. and Lindell C. Eagan, Case
No. 1:14-cv-02456 (D. Md., August 1, 2014), alleges the Defendants
actively and knowingly participated in a scheme in which Creighton
E. Northrop III, The Creig Northrop Team, P.C., and Carla J.
Northrop received approximately $1.3 million in illegal kickbacks
from Lakeview Title Company, Inc. from 2001 through 2014, in
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company doing
business in the State of Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn Russell Donaldson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF G. RUSSELL DONALDSON, PC
      2200 Defense Hwy Ste 309
      Crofton, MD 21114
      Telephone: (410) 451-7100
      Facsimile: (410) 451-7238
      E-mail: law@grdonaldson.com

         - and -

      Gregory Todd Lawrence, Esq.
      Hannah Kon, Esq.
      CONTI FENN AND LAWRENCE LLC
      36 S. Charles St Ste 2501
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 837-6995
      Facsimile: (410) 510-1647
      E-mail: greg@lawcfl.com
              hannah@lawcfl.com


CUTLER GROUP: Home Buyers May Not Sue for Implied Warranty Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
subsequent home buyers may not sue for breach of an implied
warranty of habitability, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

On Aug. 18, the justices unanimously overturned the 2012 Superior
Court ruling in Conway v. Cutler Group, which said home buyers who
were not the original purchaser-owners of a home could bring
implied warranty claims against the home builder if defects were
discovered.

Writing for the court, Justice Seamus P. McCaffery said privity of
contract between the home buyer and home builder was necessary for
an extension of the implied warranty.  Arguments from the
homeowners to the contrary, he said, would best be addressed by
the state General Assembly.

"After careful review of the arguments of the parties, the
comments of amici, and the reasoned decisions of our sister states
on this issue, we conclude that the question of whether and/or
under what circumstances to extend an implied warranty of
habitability to subsequent purchasers of a newly constructed
residence is a matter of public policy properly left to the
General Assembly," Justice McCaffery said.

"Under the facts of this case . . .  we hold that an action for
breach of the implied warranty requires contractual privity
between the parties."

Justice Max Baer issued a concurring opinion, and said that the
Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law already provides protections to
subsequent home purchasers from defects that affect habitability
of the home. Justice Correale F. Stevens joined both decisions.

According to court documents, the Cutler Group built a home for
David and Holly Fields in Jamison, Pa., in September 2003. The
Conways bought the home from the Fieldses in June 2006 and
discovered water coming into the home around the windows of their
master bedroom in April 2008, court records said.

An engineering and architecture firm inspected the home and
discovered several defects, records said. The plaintiffs sued the
Cutler Group in June 2011, alleging breach of implied warranty of
habitability.

The trial court dismissed the case on motions from the Cutler
Group, which contended that implied warranty does not extend
beyond the initial purchaser.  The Conways appealed to the
Superior Court, arguing that privity of contract is not required
for an implied warranty of habitability claim.

Attorney Steven F. Fairlie of Fairlie & Lippy, who represented the
Conways, said the ruling is a "dramatic change in the state law."
Fairlie said he has taken hundreds of cases involving implied
warranty of habitability for subsequent home buyers to settlement,
arbitration or trial and had successful outcomes for the
plaintiffs.

"There are thousands of defective stucco homes across the state of
Pennsylvania.  It's common that people move out of them, so a lot
of people are living in a defective stucco home that they didn't
buy from the original builder," he said.  "Those people are
potentially out of luck as a result of this."

According to Paul R. Rosen -- prosen@lawsgr.com -- of Spector
Gadon & Rosen, who represented the Cutler Group, the Superior
Court's ruling acted like a new cause of action opening up for
plaintiffs.

"This changed the law back to the way it was and stopped all these
hundreds of lawsuits coming out of nowhere against every
developer," he said.  "It made it clear that when someone buys a
new home, that's the person who needs protection."

According to Justice McCaffery's opinion, the Supreme Court
adopted the application of implied warranty of habitability
against home builders for original purchases of a new home in the
1972 case Elderkin v. Gaster.

Mr. Fairlie noted that the application of implied warranty of
habitability to original home buyers had been judicially created
through the Elderkin ruling, and questioned why the court felt
that extending the judicially created doctrine needed to be done
through legislative action.

"It makes no sense that the first purchaser can take advantage of
this judicially created warranty, but the subsequent home buyer
can't," he said.

In its ruling last year extending the implied warranty to
subsequent home buyers, the Superior Court relied on its 1990
decision in Spivack v. Berks Ridge, in which the warranty was
extended to a second purchaser.

However, Justice McCaffery distinguished Spivack from the Conways'
case because, in Spivack, the first purchaser had never used the
home.  Justice McCaffery further noted that the ruling in Elderkin
was rooted in the existence of a contract between the builder-
vendor and the purchaser-resident--a relationship that was lacking
in the Conway case.

"Here, the Superior Court extended that implied warranty to
circumstances where the parties were not in privity of contract
and the residence was not newly constructed, but rather had been
occupied for several years," Justice McCaffery said.  "The
Superior Court's reliance on its precedent in Spivack for its
broad holding here is misplaced, as Spivack not only is readily
distinguishable on its facts, but also promulgated a much narrower
holding."

Justice McCaffery also noted a split between state courts across
the country on the issue, with supreme courts of Iowa and Rhode
Island extending the warranty, and the high courts in Vermont and
Connecticut drawing the line at privity between the parties.

"We do not minimize the potential concerns, nor do we disregard
the rationales set forth by the parties and amici; to the
contrary, many of the arguments are cogent and compelling," he
said.  "However, the arguments are predominantly grounded in
policy considerations that necessitate judgments reserved to the
legislature after fact-finding and weighing of the ramifications
of any decision."

Robert B. Hoffman -- rhoffman@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, who filed an amicus brief for the
Pennsylvania Home Builders Association, said that home builders
often extend their own transferable warranties to home purchasers,
and that protections for subsequent home buyers are already in
place.

"It's tough proving or disproving what the cause of harm is when
the builder has been away from the home for six or eight years,"
he said. "The home builder industry is happy not to face this
liability."

According to attorney P. Timothy Kelly of Mattise & Kelly, who
filed an amicus brief in the case for the Pennsylvania Association
for Justice, the Superior Court's ruling had recognized a trend in
the case law.  He noted that after the courts left behind the
notion of buyer beware in homeowner cases in the 1920s, the courts
recognized implied warranty for new construction, and a ruling for
the Conways would have allowed the application of the warranty for
existing structures.

"It's gotten to the point where construction methods are much more
sophisticated," Mr. Kelly said.  "Many states have recognized that
we're not living in the 1920s anymore and have extended that
warranty."

According to Kelly, while the ruling will not change the law, it
will make similar cases more difficult for plaintiffs.


DAIRY FARMERS: Schreiber Gets Favorable Ruling in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE: DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., CHEESE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 9 CR 3690, MDL NO. 2031, (N.D. Ill.)
is before the Court on Defendant Schreiber Foods, Inc.'s motion
for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on
March 22, 2012, which added Schreiber Foods, Inc. as a named
Defendant and added a Cartwright Act claim under California law.
Defendant Schreiber is an employee-owned manufacturer and
distributor of natural cheese, process cheese, and cultured dairy
products, such as cream cheese and yogurt, headquartered in Green
Bay, Wisconsin. Schreiber moved to dismiss the second amended
class action complaint. The Court granted in part and denied in
part Defendant Schreiber's motion to dismiss, dismissing Counts 2
and 3 (monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act) and allowing Plaintiffs to go
forward with their claims arising under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 (Count I), Section 22 of the Commodity
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Section 25 (Count IV), and the Cartwright
Act (Count V), as well as a claim labeled "unjust enrichment and
restitution" (VI). Schreiber moved for summary judgment on these
remaining claims.

District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., in memorandum opinion and order
dated August 18, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/KMIVEGfrom Leagle.com, granted Schreiber's motion
for summary judgment.

"Judgment will be entered in favor of Schreiber and against Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs on all claims asserted against it," Judge Dow
added.

The Court held, among other things, that lack of evidence defeats
Plaintiffs' aiding and abetting claim. The Plaintiffs also failed
to demonstrate that Schreiber had the specific intent to
manipulate milk futures.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litigation, In Re,
represented by Joel Gerald Chefitz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP,
Amanda Jo Metts, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew
Webster, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Christopher Mac Neil Murphy,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jennifer A Smulin Diver, McDermott
Will & Emery LLP & Michael A. Pope, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP.

Adam Properties, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne Kristin
Fornecker, Milberg LLP, Edward Anthony Wallace, Wexler Wallace
LLP, Peggy J Wedgworth, Milberg LLP & Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause,
Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP.

Stew Leonard's Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne Kristin
Fornecker, Milberg LLP, Edward Anthony Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP
& Peggy J Wedgworth, Milberg LLP.

Knutson's, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mary Jane Fait, Fred T
Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz Llp, John E
Tangren, Grant Eisenhofer PA, Michael D. Yanovsky, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC & Theodore Beloyeannis Bell,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC.

Indriolo Distributors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amanda
Nicole Miller, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson Llp, Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, Christopher M. McGrath,
Lovell Stewart Halabian Jacobson, LLP, John E Tangren, Grant
Eisenhofer PA, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Mary Jane Fait
& Matthew E Van Tine, Miller Law LLC.
Valley Gold LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Fabend
Bartlett, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello,
Jeffrey A. Leon, Complex Litigation Group LLC, John E Tangren,
Grant Eisenhofer PA, Mary Jane Fait, Peggy J Wedgworth, Milberg
LLP & Stephen A Weiss, Seeger Weiss LLP.

Jacqueline A. Rudman, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wild,
Wild Law Group PLLC, Alex Stepick, IV, Progressive Law Group LLC,
Elizabeth Roberson-Young, Progressive Law Group LLC, Mark Anthony
Bulgarelli, Progressive Law Group LLC & Max Wild, Wild Law Group,
Pllc.

Brandi Palombella, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew S. Wild, Wild
Law Group PLLC, Alex Stepick, IV, Progressive Law Group LLC, Mark
Anthony Bulgarelli, Progressive Law Group LLC & Max Wild, Wild Law
Group, Pllc.

Courtney Asmann, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Roberson-
Young, Progressive Law Group LLC.

Brian Rogers, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Roberson-Young,
Progressive Law Group LLC.

Constantin Yiannacopoulous, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
Roberson-Young, Progressive Law Group LLC.

Ann Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Roberson-Young,
Progressive Law Group LLC.

Mike Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Roberson-Young,
Progressive Law Group LLC.

Cravon Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Roberson-
Young, Progressive Law Group LLC.

Tim Waun, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Roberson-Young,
Progressive Law Group LLC.

Brian Buttars, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Roberson-Young,
Progressive Law Group LLC.

Gerald Bos, Defendant, represented by William M. Hannay, Schiff
Hardin LLP, Jacob L. Kahn, Schiff Hardin LLP & Walter C.
Greenough, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Keller's Creamery, LP, Defendant, represented by Joel Gerald
Chefitz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Bryan Matthew Webster,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Christopher Mac Neil Murphy,
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, David L Hanselman, Jr, McDermott,
Will & Emery LLP & Jennifer A Smulin Diver, McDermott Will & Emery
LLP.

Gary Hanman, Defendant, represented by Ellen M. Wheeler, Foley &
Lardner & Rebecca R. Hanson, Foley & Lardner.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chelsea
L Black, Mcdermott Will & Emery, Crystal Lee Leighton, McDermott
Will & Emery LLP, David L Hanselman, Jr, McDermott, Will & Emery
LLP, Jennifer A Smulin Diver, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Karne O.
Newburn, Mcdermott Will & Emery, Michael A. Pope, McDermott, Will
& Emery LLP & Nithya Abraham Mathai, Mcdermott Will & Emery Llp.
Frank Otis, Defendant, represented by Jessica Ann Baer, K&l Gates.

Glenn Millar, Defendant, represented by Jessica Ann Baer, K&l
Gates.

Keller's Creamery, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Jennifer A
Smulin Diver, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Keller's Creamery Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer A Smulin Diver, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Schreiber Foods Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan P. Eimer,
Eimer Stahl LLP, Daniel D Birk, Eimer Stahl LLP, Stephen Heschel
Weil, Eimer Stahl LLP & Vanessa G. Jacobsen, Eimer Stahl LLP.

Service List, represented by Matthew S. Wild, Wild Law Group PLLC,
Christopher Mac Neil Murphy, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Ellen M.
Wheeler, Foley & Lardner, Glenn R. Reichardt, K&L GATES LLP, Ilan
Chorowsky, Progressive Law Group LLC, Jeffrey A. Leon, Complex
Litigation Group LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Paul F.
Novak, Milberg LLP, Paul W. Rebein, Rebein Law Firm, PLLC & Steven
M. Kowal, K&L Gates LLP.


DELTA AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub, writing for Law360, reports that the 11th Circuit
affirmed on Aug. 25 the dismissal of a breach of contract class
action accusing Delta Airlines Inc. of skimping on frequent flier
miles by using the geographic distance between destinations and
not the distance actually flown.

Plaintiff Wynette Kwok had argued that the Northern District of
Georgia wrongly dismissed her lawsuit alleging that Delta breached
its contract with SkyMiles customers by giving them fewer miles
than they deserved, but the appeals court disagreed, upholding the
trial court's decision that Delta's method of crediting award
miles is permissible under the contract.

"Absent contract language stipulating that mileage awards were to
be calculated in some other way, Ms. Kwok failed to demonstrate
that Delta's method of allocating mileage awards -- by assigning a
set mileage to each flight segment available for purchase --
violated the terms of the SkyMiles Program Rules," the appeals
court said.  "Because the facts alleged in the complaint
demonstrate that no breach of contract occurred, the district
court properly granted Delta's motion to dismiss the complaint."

The three-judge panel also rejected Ms. Kwok's argument that the
district court wrongly dismissed her complaint with prejudice
without inviting her to seek leave to amend, saying Ms. Kwok never
filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend and instead
filed a response to Delta's motion to dismiss.  Furthermore, the
court was not obligated to grant her leave to amend before
dismissing the complaint, the appeals court said.

According to court documents, filed in March 2013, she flew from
Los Angeles to New York City twice and was awarded 2,475 miles
each time, even though she flew 2,651 and 2,802 miles.  Ms. Kwok
claimed she was entitled to the difference in miles between what
she flew and what she was given.

But the district court held that even if the SkyMiles language was
not clear, a contract construction would still be decided in
Delta's favor, noting that a portion of the rules states that
miles will be calculated based on the distance between the origin
and final destination "regardless of the number of stops."

It also found that Ms. Kwok's reasoning would lead to some absurd
results, including when planes are forced to fly above a
destination in circles waiting for an opportunity to land, and the
appeals court agreed.

"It would make little sense to require Delta to award mileage
based on the actual distance traveled by each airplane," the three
judge panel said.  "Such a method of calculation would be
unpredictable and unwieldy, requiring Delta to keep track of the
distances flown by each plane in its fleet and result in
additional miles being awarded for unplanned contingencies, such
as if a plane had to divert around inclement weather or fly around
the airport to approach a particular runway."

Ms. Kwok is represented by David A. Bain of Law Offices of David
A. Bain LLC and Lei Mei -- mei@meimark.com -- and Reece Nienstadt
-- rnienstadt@meimark.com -- of Mei & Mark LLP.

Delta is represented by Mark Filip -- mark.filip@kirkland.com --
Gabor Balassa and Martin Roth -- martin.roth@kirkland.com -- of
Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Cathy O'Neil of King & Spalding LLP.

The case is Wynette Kwok v. Delta Air Lines Inc., case number 14-
10552, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.


EQT PRODUCTION: 4th Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Rulings in 5 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal arose from the district court's decision to certify five
related class action suits.

The plaintiffs in each of the five classes generally allege that
EQT Production Co. and CNX Gas Co. have unlawfully deprived the
class members of royalty payments from the production of coalbed
methane gas (CBM) in Virginia. Four of the five classes claim that
EQT and CNX have improperly remitted royalty payments to escrow or
suspense accounts instead of to the royalty owners. All five
classes allege that EQT and CNX have been underpaying royalties.

The defendants petitioned for permission to appeal the five orders
granting class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f).  The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth
Circuit deferred ruling on the petitions, consolidated the cases,
and ordered formal briefing.

In an opinion dated August 19, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/3nZv08from Leagle.com, the Fourth Circuit grants
the appeal and concludes that the district court abused its
discretion when it certified the five classes.  It pointed out
that Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a
more rigorous analysis as to whether the requirements for class
certification have been satisfied.  The Fourth Circuit, therefore,
vacates and remands the case for reconsideration of the
plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

The cases are EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ROBERT ADAIR,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Respondent.  EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EVA MAE
ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Respondent. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JULIE A. KISER,
Plaintiff and Class Representative, Respondent.  CNX GAS COMPANY,
LLC, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY CARLOS HALE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Respondent. CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC,
Petitioner, v. DORIS BETTY ADDISON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Respondent. BUCKHORN COAL COMPANY LLLP;
COMMONWEALTH COAL CORPORATION; HARRISON-WYATT LLC, Petitioners, v.
DORIS BETTY ADDISON; JEFFREY CARLOS HALE, Respondents.  ROBERT
ADAIR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellant.  EVA MAE ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.  JULIE A. KISER, Plaintiff and Class
Representative, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.  JEFFREY CARLOS HALE, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  CNX GAS
COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.  DORIS BETTY ADDISON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.  DORIS BETTY
ADDISON; JEFFREY CARLOS HALE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
BUCKHORN COAL COMPANY LLLP; COMMONWEALTH COAL CORPORATION;
HARRISON-WYATT LLC, Defendants-Appellants, NOS. 13-414, 13-415,
13-418, 13-419, 13-421, 13-422, 13-2376, 13-2378, 13-2381, 13-
2382, 13-2383, 13-2384.

ARGUED: Jonathan Todd Blank -- jblank@mcguirewoods.com --
MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; Michael Willis Smith
-- msmith@cblaw.com -- CHRISTIAN & BARTON, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellants.

Elizabeth Joan Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- LIEFF, CABRASER,
HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, San Francisco, California, for
Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Stephen M. Hodges -- shodges@pennstuart.com -- Wade W.
Massie -- wmassie@pennstuart.com --  Mark E. Frye -- Mark E. Frye
-- mfrye@pennstuart.com -- PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon,
Virginia; R. Braxton Hill, IV -- bhill@cblaw.com -- CHRISTIAN &
BARTON, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant EQT Production Company.

Lisa M. Lorish -- llorish@mcguirewoods.com -- Tennille J.
Checkovich -- tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com -- John Tracy Walker,
IV -- twalker@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP,
Charlottesville, Virginia; James R. Creekmore --
james@creekmorelaw.com -- Blair Nivia Wood -- --
blair@creekmorelaw.com -- CREEKMORE LAW FIRM PC, Blacksburg,
Virginia, for Appellant.

CNX Gas Company, LLC. Blair M. Gardner --
bgardner@jacksonkelly.com -- Lee Adair Floyd --
lafloyd@jacksonkelly.com -- JACKSON KELLY PLLC Charleston, West
Virginia; Eric D. Whitesell, GILLESPIE, HART, ALTIZER & WHITESELL,
Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellants Buckhorn Coal Company LLLP,
Commonwealth Coal Corporation, and Harrison-Wyatt LLC.

David S. Stellings ---- dstellings@lchb.com -- Daniel E. Seltz --
dseltz@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, New
York, New York; Jackson S. White, Jr., THE WHITE LAW OFFICE,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellees.


EXELON CORP: Faces Property Damage Suit for Alleged Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation is facing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging damage to property
due to the defendants' negligent handling of radioactive
materials, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On April 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Cotter
Corp. and six additional defendants. The complaint alleges that
individuals living in the North St. Louis area within a three-mile
radius of the West Lake Landfill suffered damage to property or
loss of use of property due to the defendants' negligent handling
of radioactive materials. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for
monetary damages under the Price-Anderson Act. At this stage of
the litigation, Exelon and Exelon Generation Company, LLC cannot
estimate a range of loss, if any.


EXELON CORP: ComEd Fails to Get TCPA Violation Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Commonwealth Edison Company to dismiss a lawsuit
alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Lawsuit
was denied, according to Exelon Corp.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. On February 21, 2014,
ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class action complaint and
intends to contest the allegations of this suit. On June 4, 2014,
ComEd's motion to dismiss was denied. As of June 30, 2014, ComEd
has a reserve, which is not material, representing its best
estimate of probable loss associated with this class action
complaint.


EXELON CORP: PHI Faces Shareholder Suits Over Proposed Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. has been named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of public stockholders
challenging a proposed Merger, according to Exelon Corp.'s July
31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

PHI and its directors have been named as defendants in a purported
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and
other public stockholders challenging the proposed Merger and
seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. Exelon has been
named as a defendant is some of these lawsuits.
If a plaintiff in this or any other litigation that may be filed
in the future is successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting
the parties from completing the Merger on the terms contemplated
by the Merger Agreement, the injunction may prevent the completion
of the Merger in the expected timeframe or altogether. If
completion of the Merger is prevented or delayed, it could result
in substantial costs to Exelon. In addition, Exelon could incur
significant costs in connection with the lawsuits, including costs
associated with the indemnification of PHI's directors and
officers.


FACEBOOK INC: Has Four Weeks to Respond to Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ComputerWeekly.com reports that an Austrian court has given
Facebook four weeks to respond to a class action that claims
Facebook Ireland is in breach of European law on the use of
personal data.

The class action, led by Austrian privacy activist and law student
Max Schrems, claims Facebook violates user rights by tracking
internet use on external sites, including the use of "like"
buttons.  The class action, which has attracted the support of
more than 60,0000 users of the social network, also attacks
Facebook's analysis of users through what it calls "big data"
systems.

Mr. Schrems believes Facebook supports the US Prism surveillance
program revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The Vienna Regional Court issued the deadline to Facebook after
reviewing the class action, according to an update on the Europe
vs Facebook campaign website.

"The first step in the legal procedure is hereby taken," the
update said.

According to the campaign led by Mr. Schrems, Facebook Ireland
could apply for an extension, but if it fails to submit a
counterstatement, the court will be able to make a judgment based
on the lawsuit.

More than 25,000 Facebook users from outside the US and Canada
have signed up as part of the class action, and a further 35,000
have registered their support on the campaign website.

A week after launching the class action, Mr. Schrems announced he
would limit the number official claimants to 25,000 because every
claim had to be verified.

In June, another case brought by Mr. Schrems to force data
protection authorities to investigate allegations that Facebook
passes personal data to the US National Security Agency was
referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg by
the high court in Dublin.

On launching the class action in Austria, Mr. Schrems said: "Our
aim is to make Facebook finally operate lawfully in the area of
data protection."

The class action applies to injunctions under EU data protection
law and seeks damages of a token amount of EUR500 per user.

"We are only claiming a small amount as our primary objective is
to ensure correct data protection," said Mr. Schrems.


FRANCHISE TAX: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Boggs" Case Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In RICK BOGGS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent, NO. B245446, Mr. Boggs appealed from the
trial court's order denying his motion for class certification.
According to the plaintiff, the order must be reversed because, in
his motion, he satisfied all of the requirements for class
certification and, in denying his motion, the trial court used
improper criteria or incorrect legal analyses.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Five, in an opinion dated August 19, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/YdEbRUfrom Leagle.com, held that
because substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion
that plaintiff had failed, inter alia, to satisfy the numerosity
element of the class certification requirements and because the
trial court used proper criteria and a correct legal analysis in
reaching that conclusion, there is no basis for reversal.

The Appeals Court, hence, affirmed the order denying the motion
for class certification.

Arias Ozzello & Gignac, Mike Arias -- marias@aogllp.com -- Mikael
H. Stahle -- mstahle@aogllp.com ; Eugene Feldman for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Kristin G. Hogue, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Donna M. Dean, Deputy Attorney General
for Defendant and Respondent.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Plaintiffs Fight Bankruptcy Stay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a number of plaintiffs attorneys, hoping to jumpstart
lawsuits over General Motors Co.'s ignition switch recalls, are
challenging a court order that prevents them from pursuing their
claims.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber has temporarily halted
proceedings in consumer lawsuits filed over GM's ignition-switch
defect, which prompted recalls of 2.6 million vehicles this year.
Plaintiffs lawyers in three cases, hoping to escape Judge Gerber's
stay order, assert that their claims aren't subject to decisions
in GM's bankruptcy.  So far, their challenges have been
unsuccessful.

"GM's strategy in the bankruptcy court has closed the door to
every court in America," said Gary Peller, a professor at
Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, one of the lawyers
challenging the stay order.  "This is a real abuse of the legal
process."

GM, represented by Arthur Steinberg, a partner at King & Spalding
in New York, alleges the claims are subject to the bankruptcy
proceeding because they involve cars, trucks or automobile parts
made before 2009, when the company filed for Chapter 11
protection.

On May 16, Judge Gerber, of the Southern District of New York,
issued the stay, which remains in effect until he decides whether
those lawsuits are barred under the terms of GM's bankruptcy.  GM
has moved to toss out most of the ignition-switch cases on that
ground. On Monday, Gerber delayed briefing on that issue.

On Aug. 19, Orange County, Calif., District Attorney Tony
Rackauckas sought to partially lift the stay so that he could seek
remand of his case to Orange County Superior Court.  Mr.
Rackauckas sued GM on June 27 seeking civil remedies on behalf of
California consumers with cars and trucks recalled over 35
defects, including the ignition switch.

"This action is a police-power action," said Mark Robinson, a
senior partner at Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc.
who is working on the case with Mr. Rackauckas.  "This is not
something they should have removed."

In another case, nine named plaintiffs claim they're not subject
to the bankruptcy proceeding because they bought their cars after
2009.  Judge Gerber disagreed on Aug. 4.  "Our argument is that,
once GM emerged from bankruptcy, anyone who bought their product
isn't covered by the bankruptcy sale order," said Jeffrey Block,
co-founding partner of Boston's Block & Leviton, who brought the
class action.

A third case, brought on behalf of a couple who owned two 2006
vehicles, asserts claims under the District of Columbia Consumer
Protection Procedures Act.  Mr. Peller, who represents the couple,
argued their lawsuit is exempt from the bankruptcy stay because it
involves GM's conduct after 2009--namely, its failure to disclose
safety defects.

"The Elliotts are not claiming when they bought their cars that
they were tricked," said Mr. Peller, referring to his clients,
Lawrence and Celestine Elliott.  "They're claiming new GM was the
wrongdoer.  They knew their car was dangerous and failed to tell
them.  Their entire case is based on the conduct of new GM."
Judge Gerber, citing his ruling in the earlier case, rejected that
argument on Aug. 12.

Plaintiffs attorneys in both cases said they would appeal Judge
Gerber's decisions to U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who is
overseeing more than 100 ignition switch lawsuits.  On Aug. 15,
Judge Furman asked lawyers in both cases to come up with a
schedule to address their appeals.


GILLETTE CO: Must Donate $6-Mil. Worth of Batteries to Charities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gillette must donate $6 million worth of batteries and pay
consumers to settle claims that it exaggerated the performance of
Duracell Ultra, reports Deshayla Strachan at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Joshua Poertner sued The Gillette Co. and Proctor & Gamble Co. for
making false claims that their Duracell Ultra Batteries would
perform better than their Copper Top batteries.  Poertner claimed
Gillette violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act with its misleading marketing.

Gillette is a wholly owned subsidiary of P&G.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell on August 21, 2014, approved
the class settlement that includes a donation of $6 million in
batteries to charitable organizations, $5.68 million in attorneys'
fees and monetary damages to the affected families.

Poertner had claimed that he bought the Ultra batteries three or
four times in 2010, and again in 2012.  The ruling notes that
there are an estimated 7.26 million similarly situated consumers
in the class.  Each household in the class will receive between $6
and $12, depending on if they provide a proof of purchase.

Gillette denied any wrongdoing but has agreed under the settlement
to stop using the phrase "our longest lasting" when selling Ultra
batteries in the United States.  The ruling notes that Gillette
stopped selling the batteries all together in July 2013.

The efforts of class counsel "played a large part in ending the
defendants' practice of selling the Ultra batteries, which is a
direct benefit to the class members," Presnell wrote August 21,
2014, in denying objections to the terms of the settlement from a
few class members.

Presnell deemed the battery donation appropriate since it is
nearly impossible to identify everyone who purchased the product
to provide more monetary relief.  While there is no guarantee of a
full Spanish website for class members, Presnell did highlight the
link to see the claim forms in Spanish.

"The small number of exclusions and objections from class members
relative to the size of the class, and the lack of merit to the
objections that were made, further support approval of the
Settlement," Presnell wrote.

"Further, defendants have defended this action vigorously and if
this case were to proceed without settlement, the resulting trial
and the almost inevitable appeal would be complex, lengthy and
expensive," he added.  "Accordingly, it could be years before
class members receive any benefit, and the ultimate net recovery
could well be less than that received under this settlement."

The case is Joshua D. Poertner v. The Gillette Company and Proctor
& Gamble Company, Case No. 6:12-cv-803-Orl-31DAB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division.


GLOBAL RENT-A-CAR: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Posso v. Global Rent-A-Car of ft. Lauderdale, Inc., a
Florida corporation, Luz Dixon, individually, and Victor Casado,
individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-61920 (S.D. Fla., August 21, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-
judgment interest, post judgment interest, reasonable attorney's
fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Global Rent-A-Car of Ft. Lauderdale, Inc. is a corporation that
rents automobiles to consumers within the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


GRAND KING: Faces "Osorto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin A. Sanchez Osorto, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated v. Grand King Buffet Holland, Inc.,
a domestic for-profit corporation, Dong Bi Hua, Xue Jin Zhao,
individually and as an officer, and Xue Jin Zhao, individually and
as an officer, Case No. 1:14-cv-00835 (W.D. Mich., August 7,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Grand King Buffet Holland, Inc. is a Chinese all-you-can-eat
buffet restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mario A. Cascante, Esq.
      M.A. CASCANTE
      P.O. Box 9121
      Wyoming, MI 49509
      Telephone: (616) 425-9374
      E-mail: mcascante@gmail.com


GREEN NRG: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Hoffer" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hoffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Green NRG Group, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06562 (C.D.
Cal., August 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Green NRG Group, Inc. owns and operates an energy company, doing
business in the State of California and in the County of Los
Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq.
      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: gouya@kazlg.com
              jason@kazlg.com
              ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

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


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


HARVEST C-FOOD: "Angel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymundo Vasquez Angel, Leonel de los Santos and Leo Vasquez,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Harvest
C-Food Inc. (d/b/a Harvest Chinese & Thai Cuisine), and Xiao Feng
Zou, Case No. 1:14-cv-06035 (S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2014), seeks to
recover  overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, and control an Asian Restaurant
located at 1502 First Avenue, New York NY 10075 under the name
Harvest Chinese & Thai Cuisine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


HEADWATERS INC: Seeks Approval of Suit Over Stock Grants to CEO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Headwaters Incorporated is seeking approval of a settlement
reached in a lawsuit filed by James W. Edwards over the
Compensation Committee's grant of certain stock appreciation
rights to the Chief Executive Officer, according to the company's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In May 2013, James W. Edwards, purportedly a stockholder of
Headwaters Incorporated, filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah against current and former
members of the Board of Directors of the Company and against
Headwaters Incorporated. The complaint alleges that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets in
connection with the Compensation Committee's grant of certain
stock appreciation rights to the Company's Chief Executive Officer
in November 2011 under the 2010 Incentive Plan (Plan). The
complaint alleges that the 2011 grant exceeded Plan limits and
that the 2013 Proxy Statement in connection with the Company's
2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders contained false and misleading
information concerning the 2011 grant. The complaint seeks an
order rescinding the 2011 grant, unspecified damages and other
remedies, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. The complaint
was brought derivatively on behalf of Headwaters Incorporated and
as a purported class action on behalf of all shareholders of
record as of December 31, 2012. Defendants filed their initial
response to the complaint in January 2014. The parties entered
into a stipulation of settlement in February 2014 and in May 2014
the District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval
of settlement. Headwaters has published notice of the proposed
settlement. It is expected that the District Court will hold a
hearing on motion for final approval of the settlement in August
2014.


HEADWATERS INC: Ordered to Pay $16.2MM in Suit Related to Adtech
----------------------------------------------------------------
Headwaters Incorporated paid approximately $16.2 million in
exchange for a satisfaction of a court judgment in a suit over a
synthetic fuel technology invented by James G. Davidson, according
to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

In 1998, Headwaters entered into a technology purchase agreement
with James G. Davidson and Adtech, Inc. The transaction
transferred certain patent and royalty rights to Headwaters
related to a synthetic fuel technology invented by Davidson. In
2002, Headwaters received a summons and complaint from the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee filed
by former stockholders of Adtech alleging, among other things,
fraud, conspiracy, constructive trust, conversion, patent
infringement and interference with contract arising out of the
1998 technology purchase agreement entered into between Davidson
and Adtech on the one hand, and Headwaters on the other. All
claims against Headwaters were dismissed in pretrial proceedings
except claims of conspiracy and constructive trust. The District
Court certified a class comprised of substantially all purported
stockholders of Adtech, Inc. The plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages from Headwaters in the approximate amount of $43.0 million
plus prejudgment interest and punitive damages. In June 2009, a
jury reached a verdict in a trial in the amount of $8.7 million
for the eight named plaintiffs representing a portion of the class
members. In September 2010, a jury reached a verdict after a trial
for the remaining 46 members of the class in the amount of $7.3
million. In April 2011, the trial court entered an order for a
constructive trust in the amount of approximately $16.0 million
(the same amount as the sum of the previous jury verdicts), and
entered judgment against Headwaters in the total approximate
amount of $16.0 million, in accordance with the verdicts and order
on constructive trust. Headwaters and plaintiffs cross-appealed
from the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit transferred the case to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the basis
of jurisdiction. In April 2014, a panel of the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the District Court in a divided decision.
In May 2014, Headwaters paid the plaintiffs approximately $16.2
million in exchange for a satisfaction of judgment, bringing the
case to conclusion.


HEADWATERS INC: Eldorado Stone Seeks Judgment in Archstone Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eldorado Stone has moved for summary judgment on Archstone's
remaining claim of common law indemnification for damages paid to
tenants who were evicted when Archstone repaired its damaged
apartments, according to Headwaters Inc.'s July 31, 2014, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Archstone owns an apartment complex in Westbury, New York.
Archstone alleges that moisture penetrated the building envelope
and damaged moisture sensitive parts of the buildings which began
to rot and grow mold. In 2008, Archstone evicted its tenants and
began repairing the 21 apartment buildings. Also in 2008,
Archstone filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court of
the State of New York against the prime contractor and its
performance bond surety, the designer, and Eldorado Stone, LLC
which supplied architectural stone that was installed by others
during construction. The prime contractor then sued over a dozen
subcontractors who in turn sued others. Most parties filed cross-
claims for contribution and indemnity against Eldorado Stone and
others. Archstone claims as damages approximately $36.0 million in
repair costs, $19.0 million in lost lease payments and rent
abatement, $7.0 million paid to tenants who sued Archstone, and
$7.0 million for class action defense fees, plus prejudgment
interest and attorney's fees. Eldorado Stone answered denying
liability and tendered the matter to its insurers who are paying
for the defense of the case. Eldorado Stone obtained an order of
summary judgment dismissing three of Archstone's four claims.
Eldorado Stone has moved for summary judgment on Archstone's
remaining claim of common law indemnification for damages paid to
the tenants and associated attorney's fees. Meanwhile, discovery
is underway.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls 6 Million Computer Power Cords
-------------------------------------------------------
Ian Simpson, writing for Reuters, reports that Hewlett-Packard Co.
is recalling about 6 million computer power cords after 29 reports
of the cords melting or charring, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission said on Aug. 26.

The recalled item, the LS-15 AC power cord, was distributed with
Hewlett-Packard and Compaq notebook and mini notebook computers
and with AC adapter-powered accessories such as docking stations,
the commission said in a statement.

"Customers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled
power cords and contact Hewlett-Packard to order a free
replacement," the statement said.

About 5.6 million power cords are being recalled in the United
States, along with 446,700 in Canada.  The cords were all made by
a single, unidentified Chinese manufacturer, a source familiar
with the situation said.

HP offered on Aug. 26 to replace all affected cords and apologized
to customers.

The Palo Alto, California-based company has received 29 reports of
cords overheating and melting or charring.  There have been two
claims of minor burns and 13 claims of minor property damage, the
commission's statement said.

The computers and accessories were sold with the AC power cords at
electronics stores, dealers and online from September 2010 through
June 2012 for about $500 to $1,500, the statement said.


HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lucas on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Hooters of America, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01958 (S.D. Cal.,
August 21, 2014), alleged that the Defendant uses an automatic
telephone dialing system to send unsolicited text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in direct contravention to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Hooters of America, LLC owns and operates a restaurant chain with
hundreds of locations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patric Alexander Lester, Esq.
      PATRIC LESTER AND ASSOCIATES
      5694 Mission Center Road, Suite 358
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 283-6078
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
      E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com


HSBC NORTH AMERICA: Class Cannot Intervene in "FHFA" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A proposed homeowner class is too late and has no grounds to join
a lawsuit that the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed against
HSBC and other banks over securities fraud claims related to the
2008 financial crisis, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

HSBC was one of the 17 financial institutions that the federal
regulatory agency hit with lawsuits for allegedly causing billions
in losses by lying about worthless mortgage-backed securities.

Although the cases were filed in September 2011, homeowner Roger
Mauermann moved into intervene this year on behalf a proposed
class of all borrowers who had to foreclose on mortgages backed by
these toxic securities.

On August 25, 2014, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote dismissed his
case, in part, because of delay.

"Mauermann waited nearly three years, until the eve of trial, to
make this motion," she wrote in a six-page opinion.

With trial currently slated for Sept. 29, "prejudice to the
existing parties would be extreme" if she inserted Mauermann's
class into the case, Cote found.

In addition, Mauermann's claims "chiefly concern alleged
fraudulent and predatory lending practices by non-party
originators, as opposed to the false statements in HSBC's offering
documents FHFA alleges here," she noted.

"Although Mauermann's mortgage loan happens to be one of those
securitized by HSBC in the [residential mortgage-backed
securities] at issue here, Mauermann's claims have no place in
this litigation," the opinion states.

Mauermann's lawyer William Sanchez-Calderon said in a phone
interview that he has not decided whether he is going to appeal or
ask Cote to reconsider her decision in light of the looming trial.

But Sanchez said his client may have another legal option.

"We are considering filing an independent action against HSBC," he
told Courthouse News.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency's lawyers declined to comment.

Plaintiff-Intervenor Roger Mauermann is represented by:

          William J. Sanchez, Esq.
          WILLIAM J. SANCHEZ P.A.
          12600 SW 120th St., Suite 102
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: (305) 232-8889
          Facsimile: (305) 232-8819
          E-mail: William@wsanchezlaw.com

               - and -

          John de Leon, Esq.
          CHAVEZ AND DE LEON P.A.
          1399 SW 1st Ave., Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 740-5347
          Facsimile: (305) 740-5348
          E-mail: jdeleon@chavez-deleon.com

The case is Federal Housing Finance Agency v. HSBC North America
Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-06189-DLC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


IDENEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Has MoU to Settle Suits Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle lawsuits over its merger with Merck & Co.,
Inc., according to Idenix's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On June 16 2014, two cases were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Idenix, our
directors and certain officers, and Merck, captioned as follows:
Ronald Burns, et al. v. Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 9764-VCG (Del. Ch.) and Emin Dulger, et al. v. Idenix
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 9767-VCG (Del. Ch.). The
two cases are putative class actions brought by purported
stockholders alleging, among other things, that our directors
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement,
and that we and Merck aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. Both complaints seek, among other things, either
to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be
consummated, as well as money damages."

"On June 26, 2014, a case was filed in the Trial Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court Department, for
Suffolk County against Idenix, our directors, and Merck, captioned
as follows: Bill Lioio, et al. v. Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Docket No. B.L.S. 14-2010. This case is a putative class
action brought by purported stockholders alleging, among other
things, that our directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger agreement, and that Merck aided and abetted
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks,
among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or
to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as money damages.

"On July 2, 2014, another case was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against Idenix, our directors, and Merck,
captioned as follows: David Wohlberg, et al. v. Idenix
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 9854 (Del. Ch.). This case
is a putative class action brought by purported stockholders
alleging, among other things, that our directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement and issuing a
materially false and misleading Schedule 14D-9, and that Idenix
and Merck aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty. This complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin
the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be
consummated, as well as money damages.

"On July 24, 2014, we, the members of our board of directors and
Merck entered into a memorandum of understanding, which we refer
to as the MOU, with the plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions
reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the actions based
on the agreement to include certain additional disclosures
relating to the offer and the merger in our public filings."


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Court Signs Protective Order in Mulligan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed a stipulated protective order
on August 18, 2014, in the class action captioned DENIS MULLIGAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., LARRY HSU, and ARTHUR A.
KOCH Defendants.  HAVERHILL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX
LABORATORIES, INC., LARRY HSU, and ARTHUR A. KOCH Defendants, CASE
NOS. 13-CV-01037-EMC, 13-CV-01566-EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

The court-approved stipulated protective order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/aDgJVAfrom Leagle.com, provides that
certain information sought in discovery and for preparation for
the trial of this action may be confidential, private, or
proprietary in nature requiring special protection from public
disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting
this litigation.  The Parties acknowledges that the Order does not
confer blanket protections on all responses to discovery and that
the protection it affords extends only to the limited information
or items that are entitled under the applicable legal principles
to treatment as confidential.

SOLOMON B. CERA -- scera@gbcslaw.com -- THOMAS C. BRIGHT --
tbright@gbcslaw.com -- GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, San
Francisco, California, Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the
Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Trust.

COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Steven J. Toll --
stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel S.
Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- (admitted pro hac vice)
Joshua M. Kolsky -- jkolsky@cohenmilstein.com -- (admitted pro hac
vice) Genevieve Fontan -- gfontan@cohenmilstein.com -- Washington,
D.C. Christopher Lometti -- clometti@cohenmilstein.com --
(admitted pro hac vice) New York, New York, Lead Counsel for Lead
Plaintiff Boilermaker Blacksmith National Pension Trust.

GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Peter A. Wald
-- peter.wald@lw.com -- Marcy C. Priedeman --
marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Patrick E. Gibbs -- patrick.gibbs@lw.com
-- Menlo Park, California, Counsel for Defendants Impax
Laboratories, Inc., Larry Hsu, and Arthur A. Koch.


INDIANA: DCS Faces "Nunez" Suit Over Violation of Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Nunez and Veronica L. Martinez on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Indiana Department of Child
Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-00293 (N.D. Ind., August 20, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Indiana Department of Child Services is a governmental department
of the State of Indiana that provides provision of child
protection, child abuse and neglect prevention, and child and
family services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


INTERLINE BRANDS: Sued Over Plumbing Toilet Connector Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacquelyn D. Ajose, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Interline Brands, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01707 (M.D.
Tenn., August 20, 2014), is an action that exposes the latent
defects of Flexible Plumbing Toilet Connectors that the Defendant
purchased in China, without testing or inspecting, and injected
into the US marketplace.

Interline Brands, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that directly
markets and distributes broad line of hardware, plumbing and
heating equipment for use by facilities, professional contractors,
and hardware retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
      Seamus T. Kelly, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS
      227 Second Avenue, N 4th Floor
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      E-mail: gstranch@branstetterlaw.com
              seamusk@branstetterlaw.com

         - and-

      Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, INC.
      One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor, 1650 Market Place
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 575-3986
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: spairs@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com
              ckocher@smbb.com

         - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Raina Borrelli, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
      Jeniphr Breckenrudge, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph J. Tabacco Jr, Esq.
      Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
      BERMAN DE VALERIO
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
              tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
      Gerald A. Daver, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BALCK, PC
      1835 Market Street, 28th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com
              gdever@finekaplan.com


INVACARE CORP: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Retirement Fund's Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christopher A. Boyko denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned GOVERNMENT OF GUAM RETIREMENT FUND, etc.,
Plaintiff, v. INVACARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
1:13CV1165, (N.D. Ohio).

The Defendants filed the motion to dismiss the amended complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6).

In his opinion and order dated August 18, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/MRvAQTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boyko held
that upon consideration of the entire Amended Complaint and taking
the factual allegations as true, the Court found that the
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged loss causation as mandated by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

The Court directed the Defendants to file their Answers in
accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A).

Government of Guam Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Avi
Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger &
Grossman, Blair A. Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein,
Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, David R. Kaplan -- DavidK@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, Gerald H. Silk --
jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman,
Benjamin Galdston -- beng@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossman & Scott D. Simpkins -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com --
Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli.

Cambridge Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Avi
Josefson, Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, John R. Climaco,
Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli, Benjamin Galdston,
Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, Blair A. Nicholas, Gerald
H. Silk & Scott D. Simpkins, Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino &
Garofoli.

Invacare Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric S. Zell --
ezell@calfee.com -- Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Fritz E.
Berckmueller -- fberckmueller@calfee.com -- Calfee, Halter &
Griswold & Mitchell G. Blair -- mblair@calfee.com -- Calfee,
Halter & Griswold.

Gerald B. Blouch, Defendant, represented by Eric S. Zell, Calfee,
Halter & Griswold, Fritz E. Berckmueller, Calfee, Halter &
Griswold & Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold.

A. Malachi Mixon, Defendant, represented by Eric S. Zell, Calfee,
Halter & Griswold, Fritz E. Berckmueller, Calfee, Halter &
Griswold & Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold.

Robert Gudbranson, Defendant, represented by Eric S. Zell, Calfee,
Halter & Griswold, Fritz E. Berckmueller, Calfee, Halter &
Griswold & Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold.

Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund,
Private Scavenger and Garage Attendants Pension Trust Fund and
Textile Maintenance and Laundry Craft Pension Fund, Movant,
represented by Jack Landskroner -- jack@landskronerlaw.com --
Landskroner Grieco Merriman.


JPC EQUESTRIAN: Recalls Stirrup Leathers Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
JPC Equestrian Inc., of Drums, Pa., announced a voluntary recall
of 1,200 HDR Stirrup Leathers.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The stirrup leather can crack and break, posing a fall hazard to
the rider.

JPC has received three reports of broken stirrup leathers.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves five models of pre-stretched stirrup leathers.
The stirrup leathers are branded with the HDR logo and name "HENRI
DE RIVEL".

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/c5NEp9

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at
Choice Brands/Horse Loverz, Dover Saddlery, The Equestrian Corner
and other equestrian supply retailers nationwide from Oct. 2013 to
May 2014 from between $30 and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the stirrup leathers and
contact JPC for a full refund.


K&G MEN'S: Faces "Hoppens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Hoppens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. K&G Men's Company, Inc., and K&G Men's
Company, Inc. d/b/a K&G Fashion Superstore, Case No. 4:14-cv-02393
(S.D. Tex., August 20, 2014), seeks to recover overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a retail store under the trade name
K&G Fashion Superstore.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq.
      ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC
      One Riverway, Suite 2300
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 961-8026
      E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com


KEY ENERGY: Sued in S.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian W. Davidson, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J.
Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, Case No. 4:14-cv-02403 (S.D. Tex.,
August 21, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Key Energy Services, Inc. provides a full range of well services
to major oil companies, foreign national oil companies and
independent oil and natural gas production companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM WATKINS NICHOLS SORRELS AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce St
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-7211
      E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com
      Facsimile: 713-225-0827

        - and -

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

         - and -

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


L.L. BEAN: Recalls Children's Sweaters Due to Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
L.L. Bean Inc., of Freeport, Maine, announced a voluntary recall
of 5,300 Fisherman's and Open Stitch Children's Sweaters.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes L.L. Bean children's sweaters sold in two
styles: Fisherman's, and Open Stitch.  The Fisherman cardigan
sweaters are a cable-knit weave with five or six buttons down the
front, sold in solid colors: pink, ivory, green, natural, navy,
teal and red.  The Fisherman sweaters have product numbers printed
on the inside back of the neck tag: 283148 (toddlers), 283149
(infants), 284855 (little girls) or 289727 (little girls).  The
Open Stitch cardigan sweater has one button at the top of the
neckline with a crocheted knit pattern sold in blue, light pink,
white and yellow with product number 286158 on the back neck tag.
The sweaters were sold in little girl's sizes 4 to 7.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at L.L. Bean stores nationwide, L.L. Bean's catalog
and online from July 2013 to June 2014 for about $30-$40.

Consumers should immediately remove the spare button attached to
label located on the inside seam of the sweaters to eliminate the
hazard.


LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $65.6MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that construction giant
Leighton's AUD65.6 million settlement of a shareholder dispute has
received court approval.

Leighton agreed in May to settle a class action launched by
thousands of shareholders who claimed the company failed to
properly disclose problems on some of its key infrastructure
projects ahead of profit downgrade announcement in April 2011.

The company's share price plunged when the announcement was made,
outlining AUD1.1 billion in writedowns and a AUD427 million full
year loss.

The Federal Court on Aug. 25 approved the settlement scheme, which
includes the payment of AUD65.55 million, plus costs, by Leighton.

The company reiterated that the settlement is not an admission of
liability or a finding of any breach of law.


LENOVO INC: Settles Defective Laptop Class Action for $70 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that Lenovo Inc. has
agreed to settle a proposed class action over laptops that
allegedly connect to wireless Internet slowly or don't connect at
all, offering as much as $70 million in repair services and
reimbursements, according to documents filed by plaintiffs on
Aug. 22 in California federal court.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Lenovo will offer up to $49
million in repairs to members of the settlement class who bought
83,000 specific Lenovo Ideapad computers, as well as up to almost
$21 million in cash refunds and credit certificates.  In a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement, plaintiffs in the
action pegged the total value of the settlement at up to $70
million, saying it appropriately balances the growing risks of
continued litigation.

"The proposed Settlement provides very substantial benefits . . .
and eliminates the risks associated with the continued litigation
of the Action," counsel for the plaintiffs wrote in a memorandum
of support.  "The immediacy and certainty of recovery, as provided
by the proposed Settlement, weighs in favor of preliminary
approval."

Plaintiffs in the proposed class action claimed on Aug. 22 that
the settlement is "presumptively fair" and is not the product of
collusion.  Settlement class members would include anyone who
bought a Lenovo Ideapad model U310 or U410 Ultrabook computer in
the United States through the date of the court's final approval.

Lenovo confirmed the proposed settlement on Aug. 19, but disputed
the valuation asserted by the plaintiffs' in their motion for
settlement approval.

"Lenovo has not agreed to pay any particular amount of money in
connection with this case," the computer maker said on Aug. 19.
"If a settlement is approved by the U.S. court, the total costs
Lenovo may incur will depend on many factors, including the number
of valid claims submitted by consumers who bought the laptops in
question."

The proposed settlement is the most recent development in the
ongoing litigation that comes more than a year after a California
federal judge trimmed some of the claims against Lenovo but left
intact the suit's most crucial components.

In February 2013, lead plaintiff Garrett Kacsuta asked a federal
judge for the injunction, plus an award for actual, statutory and
punitive damages, because the company's laptops allegedly had a
design flaw that made the Wi-Fi cards ineffective for standard Web
browsing.

Lenovo's $50 million advertising campaign told customers that the
U Series computers could "handle any mobile computing task" and
are "dependable enough to use whenever you want," the complaint
said.

In July 2013, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney refused to dismiss
the lawsuit's request for a permanent injunction requiring Lenovo
to establish a common fund for repairs of its U Series laptops,
despite argument from the computer company that its defects were
public knowledge prior to their sale.  The judge also left intact
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.

Lenovo had cited customer complaints posted on its website and
Facebook page, reviews on Amazon.com and other online retailers,
plus a negative review from an online publication as forms of
disclosure that would have exempted the manufacturer from
liability.

But by dismissing some of Mr. Kacsuta's claims, Judge Carney may
have reduced the statutory damages Lenovo will ultimately pay if
the plaintiff's other claims succeed.  Judge Carney dismissed a
claim against Lenovo for breach of an express warranty because Mr.
Kacsuta filed the lawsuit before giving Lenovo a chance to repair
or otherwise correct its alleged mistake.

Another claim was dismissed that alleged a breach of an implied
contract because there was an actual contract governing the
purported implications.

Now, the plaintiffs say the court's dismissal of Mr. Kacsuta's
warranty claims weighs in favor of settlement because it left only
consumer fraud and unfair competition claims.

Paul O. Paradis of the Paradis Law Group PLLC, counsel to
plaintiffs, hailed the deal.

"We are very pleased that our efforts culminated in a very good
settlement on behalf of class members and look forward to Judge
Carney approving the settlement," Mr. Paradis told Law360 on
Aug. 25.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul R. Kiesel of Kiesel Law LLP
and Paul O. Paradis and Gina M. Tufaro of Paradis Law Group PLLC.

Lenovo is represented by Allan Gabriel and Daniel Stephenson of
Dykema Gossett LLP.

The case is Garrett Kacsuta v. Lenovo Inc., case number 8:13-cv-
00316, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


LMM MANAGEMENT: Hamilton Gets Approval to File 3rd Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel allowed the plaintiff in the
case captioned WANDA HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. LMM MANAGEMENT, INC.,
et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2932, (E.D. Pa.) to file a
third amended complaint in this consumer class action.

Ms. Hamilton said she intends to add factual allegations, which
relate to information she received during discovery.

Ms. Hamilton filed her complaint on May 28, 2013, against the
Defendants alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, Section 1692e(3),
and Section 1692e(10).  On August 23, 2013, she filed an amended
complaint, adding Square Two as a defendant. The amended complaint
also added, among other things, class allegations, including two
classes, and a second count of restitution and disgorgement.

A copy of Judge Stengel's August 14, 2014 memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/rNm50Lfrom Leagle.com.

WANDA HAMILTON, Plaintiff, represented by CARY L. FLITTER --
cflitter@consumerslaw.com -- FLITTER LORENZ, P.C., THEODORE E.
LORENZ -- lorenz@consumerslaw.com -- FLITTER LORENZ, P.C &
ANDREW M. MILZ -- amilz@consumerslaw.com -- FLITTER LORENZ PC.

LMM MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, represented by ROBERT M. KLINE.

CACH, LLC, Defendant, represented by ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ --
amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,
MANUEL HARRY NEWBURGER -- mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- BARRON
NEWBURGER PC, RICHARD A. KESSLER -- richard@lawkessler.com --
RICHARD A. KESSLER, ESQUIRE & LAWRENCE J. BARTEL --
ljbartel@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

LAWRENCE WEIL, Defendant, represented by ROBERT M. KLINE.

SQURARE TWO FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN,
MANUEL HARRY NEWBURGER, BARRON NEWBURGER PC, RICHARD A. KESSLER,
RICHARD A. KESSLER, ESQUIRE & LAWRENCE J. BARTEL, MARSHALL
DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.


LOVETHOSESHIRTS LLC: Sued in California Over Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lovethoseshirts, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01335 (C.D.
Cal., August 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading privacy.

Lovethoseshirts, LLC is a supplier of design your own t-shirt,
personalized t-shirts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


M/A ELECTRIC: Faces "Senabria" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Sanabria, Jose Lazo Ferrufino, George Betancourth, Francisco
Caballero, Jesus Canjura, Jaime Sanabria, Wilber Rodriguez and
Jose Leonel Marquez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. M/A Electric, LLC d/b/a Tower Davis
Electric, David A. di Santo Case No. 1:14-cv-01309 (D.D.C., August
1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and any other legal
or equitable relief pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

M/A Electric, LLC is a Virginia corporation that provides services
as an electrical contractor in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Adlai Katz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 608-0880
      Facsimile: (301) 608-0881
      E-mail: dkatz@ggilbertlaw.com

         - and -

      Virginia Rae Diamond, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLC
      4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703)931-5500
      Facsimile: (703)820-0630
      E-mail: vdiamond@ashcraftlaw.com


MASTERCARD INC: Fails to Junk Opt Out Merchant Complaints in US
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, the opt out merchant complaints in the settlement of the
merchant class in MDL No. 1720, of which Mastercard Inc. is a
defendant, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints are styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International
Incorporated, Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service
Association and a number of financial institutions. Taken
together, the claims in the complaints are generally brought under
both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege,
among other things, that MasterCard, Visa, and certain financial
institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees,
enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge
rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying
and bundling of certain products and services. The cases have been
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York in MDL No. 1720. The
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint that
seeks treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. In November
2008, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' supplemental complaint in its entirety with leave
to file an amended complaint. The class plaintiffs repled their
complaint. The causes of action and claims for relief in the
complaint generally mirror those in the plaintiffs' original IPO-
related complaint although the plaintiffs have attempted to expand
their factual allegations based upon discovery that has been
garnered in the case. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages and
injunctive relief including, but not limited to, an order
reversing and unwinding the IPO. In July 2009, the class
plaintiffs and individual plaintiffs served confidential expert
reports detailing the plaintiffs' theories of liability and
alleging damages in the tens of billions of dollars. The
defendants served their expert reports in December 2009 rebutting
the plaintiffs' assertions both with respect to liability and
damages.

In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International
Incorporated entered into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing
and settlement sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc.
and Visa International Service Association and a number of
financial institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and
judgment sharing agreement with a number of financial
institutions.  The agreements provide for the apportionment of
certain costs and liabilities which MasterCard, the Visa parties
and the financial institutions may incur, jointly and/or
severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or settlement of
one or all of the cases in the merchant litigations.  Among a
number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the event of a
global settlement involving the Visa parties, the financial
institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard would pay 12% of the
monetary portion of the settlement. In the event of a settlement
involving only MasterCard and the financial institutions with
respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards, MasterCard would
pay 36% of the monetary portion of such settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants
and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the settlement.

Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out
of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of
these matters (except for one state court action in Texas) in
front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the
approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt out merchant
complaints for failure to state a claim.
MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in
the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements
described above. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with
respect to the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a
qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class
litigation. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, MasterCard had
$540 million and $723 million, respectively, in the qualified cash
settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance
sheet. The class settlement agreement provided for a return to the
defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund, based
upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt out
merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement
fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified
at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In
the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net
pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt out merchants,
representing a change in its estimate of probable losses relating
to these matters.  Accordingly, as of June 30, 2014, MasterCard
had accrued a liability of $799 million as a reserve for both the
merchant class litigation and the filed and anticipated opt out
merchant cases.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the
opt out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in
which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon
decisions in any opt out merchant cases. In addition, in the event
that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is
overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could
have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.


MASTERCARD INC: Bares Updates on Lawsuits by Canadian Merchants
---------------------------------------------------------------
In its July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014,
Mastercard Inc. provided updates on lawsuits filed against it in
Canada, alleging it engaged in a conspiracy to increase or
maintain the fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions.

In December 2010, the Canadian Competition Bureau (the "CCB")
filed an application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal to
strike down certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules. In July 2013, the Competition Tribunal issued a decision in
MasterCard's favor and dismissed the CCB's application, which was
not appealed. In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint
was commenced against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian
merchants. That suit essentially repeated the allegations and
arguments of the CCB application to the Canadian Competition
Tribunal and sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In March 2011,
a second purported class action lawsuit was commenced in British
Columbia against MasterCard, Visa and a number of large Canadian
financial institutions, and in May 2011 a third purported class
action lawsuit was commenced in Ontario against the same
defendants. These suits allege that MasterCard, Visa and the
financial institutions have engaged in a conspiracy to increase or
maintain the fees paid by merchants on credit card transactions
and establish rules which force merchants to accept all MasterCard
and Visa credit cards and prevent merchants from charging more for
payments with MasterCard and Visa premium cards. The British
Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The
British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and
legal costs. In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include
the same defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia
and Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings:
(1) the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds,
and (3) the British Columbia court issued an order in March 2014
certifying a number of the merchants' causes of action. The
parties have appealed the certification decision. Additional
proposed class action complaints have been filed in Saskatchewan
and Alberta. The claims in these complaints largely mirror the
claims in the British Columbia and Ontario suits. If the class
action lawsuits are ultimately successful, negative decisions
could have a significant adverse impact on the revenue of
MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall
business in Canada and could result in substantial damage awards.


MASTERCARD INC: Attridge Objects to Cal. Consumer Suit Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff from the Attridge action, of which Mastercard Inc.
is a defendant, are appealing the approval of a settlement reached
in the Consumer Litigations Related to 2003 U.S. Merchant
Settlement, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In April 2005, a complaint was filed in California state court on
behalf of a putative class of consumers under California unfair
competition law (Section 17200) and the Cartwright Act (the
"Attridge action"). The claims in this action seek to leverage a
1998 action by the U.S. Department of Justice against MasterCard
International, Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Visa International Corp. In
that action, a federal district court concluded that both
MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy and a Visa bylaw
provision that prohibited financial institutions participating in
the respective associations from issuing competing proprietary
payment cards (such as American Express or Discover) constituted
unlawful restraints of trade under the federal antitrust laws. The
state court in the Attridge action granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' state antitrust claims but denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Section 17200 unfair
competition claims. In September 2009, MasterCard executed a
settlement agreement that is subject to court approval in the
separate California consumer litigations (see "Consumer
Litigations Related to 2003 U.S. Merchant Settlement"). The
agreement includes a release that the parties believe encompasses
the claims asserted in the Attridge action. In August 2010, the
Court in the California consumer actions granted final approval to
the settlement. The plaintiff from the Attridge action and three
other objectors filed appeals of the settlement approval. In
January 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's
settlement approval and remanded the matter to the trial court for
further proceedings. In August 2012, the parties in the California
consumer actions filed a motion seeking approval of a revised
settlement agreement. The trial court granted final approval of
the settlement in April 2013, to which the objectors have
appealed.


MASTERCARD INC: "Honor All Cards" Suits Settlement Faces Protests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff from the Attridge action and three other objectors
have filed appeals of a trial court's final approval of a revised
settlement reached in Consumer Litigations Related to 2003 U.S.
Merchant Settlement, according to the company's July 31, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Commencing in October 1996, several class action suits were
brought by a number of U.S. merchants against MasterCard
International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. challenging certain aspects of
the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. The
plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a
similar Visa rule), which required merchants who accept MasterCard
cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard
card, constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In June 2003, MasterCard
International signed a settlement agreement to settle the claims
brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved
in December 2003. Pursuant to the settlement, MasterCard agreed,
among other things, to create two separate "Honor All Cards" rules
in the United States - one for debit cards and one for credit
cards.

In addition, individual or multiple complaints have been brought
in 19 states and the District of Columbia alleging state unfair
competition, consumer protection and common law claims against
MasterCard International (and Visa) on behalf of putative classes
of consumers. The claims in these actions largely mirror the
allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that
merchants, faced with excessive interchange fees, have passed
these overhead charges to consumers in the form of higher prices
on goods and services sold. MasterCard has successfully resolved
the cases in all of the jurisdictions except California, where
there continues to be outstanding cases. As discussed above under
"Private Litigations Related to 1998 Department of Justice
Antitrust Litigation," in September 2009, the parties to the
California state court actions executed a settlement agreement
subject to approval by the California state court. In August 2010,
the court granted final approval of the settlement, subsequent to
which MasterCard made a payment of $6 million required by the
settlement agreement. As noted in more detail, the plaintiff from
the Attridge action and three other objectors have filed appeals
of the trial court's final approval in April 2013 of a revised
settlement.


MASTERCARD INC: ATM Operators Seek to Amend Suit Over Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ATM Operator plaintiffs suing Mastercard Inc. have appealed the
dismissal of their complaints and their motion to amend the
complaints lodged with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa
have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages
they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations
and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs
have not quantified their damages although they allege that they
expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint described,
although these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of
ATM services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and
non-bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. MasterCard moved to
dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. In February
2013, the district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss
the complaints. The plaintiffs' motion seeking approval to amend
their complaints was denied by the district court in December
2013. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of both their
complaints and their motion to amend their complaints.


MAZDA MOTOR: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Vehicle Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
James Stevenson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 3:14-
cv-05250 (D.N.J., August 21, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for fraudulently concealing material facts about defects
of Mazda 2006 to 2008 vehicles.

Mazda Motor of America, Inc. manufactures and distributes Mazda
vehicles throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
      112 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016-7416
      Telephone: (212) 784-6422
      E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

         - and -

      T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      1037 Chuck Dawley, Blvd., Building A
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com

         - and -

      Terry W. West, Esq.
      Bradley C. West, Esq.
      THE WEST LAW FIRM
      124 West Highland
      Shawnee, OK 74802
      Telephone: (405) 275-0040
      E-mail: terry@thewestlawfirm.com
              brad@thewestlawfirm.com


MB FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Over Taylor Capital Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MB Financial, Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to settle a
consolidated lawsuit filed against it over its planned merger with
Taylor Capital Group, Inc., according to the company's July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 26, 2013, an action captioned James Sullivan v. Taylor
Capital Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CH17751 (the "Sullivan
Action") was commenced against Taylor Capital, the board of
directors of Taylor Capital (the "Taylor Capital Board"), and MB
Financial (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"), alleging that the Taylor
Capital Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
pending MB Financial/Taylor Capital merger (the "Merger") and that
MB Financial aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.
On August 8, 2013, a stockholder class action captioned Dennis
Panozzo v. Taylor Capital Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2013-CH-
18546 (the "Panozzo Action") was commenced against the Defendants
in the Court making similar allegations in connection with the
Merger. Subsequently, on September 10, 2013, the Sullivan Action
and the Panozzo Action were consolidated pursuant to Court order
under the first-filed Sullivan Action, Case No. 2013-CH17751 (as
so consolidated, the "Action"). On October 24, 2013, the
plaintiffs in the Action (the "Plaintiffs") filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint, alleging that the Taylor Capital
Board breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger,
including by making incomplete and misleading disclosures
concerning the Merger, and that MB Financial aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty.

On February 17, 2014, solely to eliminate the costs, risks,
burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and to put
the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, the
Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
with the Plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the Action
pursuant to which Taylor Capital and MB Financial agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures concerning the Merger, which each
of Taylor Capital and MB Financial did in a Current Report on Form
8-K filed by each company on February 18, 2014 (the "Form 8-Ks").
On July 10, 2014, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement. The agreement is subject to Court approval. The
agreement provides that, solely for purposes of settlement, the
Court will certify a class consisting of all persons who were
record or beneficial stockholders of Taylor Capital when the
Merger was approved by the Taylor Capital Board or any time
thereafter (the "Class"). In addition, the agreement provides
that, subject to approval by the Court after notice to the members
of the Class (the "Class Members"), the Action will be dismissed
with prejudice and all claims that the Class Members may possess
with regard to the Merger, with the exception of claims for
statutory appraisal, will be released. Class Members will be
afforded an opportunity to opt out of the class solely with regard
to any monetary claims they may possess. In connection with the
settlement, the Plaintiffs' counsel has expressed their intention
to seek an award by the Court of attorneys' fees and expenses. The
amount of the award to the Plaintiffs' counsel will ultimately be
determined by the Court. This payment will not affect the amount
of merger consideration to be paid by MB Financial or that any
Taylor Capital stockholder will receive in the Merger. The
proposed settlement has not yet been presented to the Court for
approval. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve
the settlement. In the absence of such approval, the proposed
settlement will terminate.


MCROBERTS PROTECTIVE: Protective Order Entered in "Mirza" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm signed on August 18, 2014, a
protective order regarding confidential information in the case
captioned NADEEM MIRZA, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MCROBERTS PROTECTIVE AGENCY, INC., a New York corporation, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 14-2356 SJO (FFMX),
(C.D. Cal.).

This is a proposed wage and hour class action for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code and unfair business
practices brought by Plaintiff Nadeem Mirza, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of Security Guards against Defendant
McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc.

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court ordered that
the provisions of the protective order shall govern the disclosure
of information in this case.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Mumm's order is available at
http://is.gd/JJ9tDafrom Leagle.com.

Nadeem Mirza, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C Westrick --
swestrick@kswlawyers.com -- Kawahito Shraga and Westrick LLP &
Megan Suzanne Knize -- mknize@kswlawyers.com -- Kawahito Shraga
and Westrick LLP.

McRoberts Protective Agency Inc, Defendant, represented by Debra
Ellwood Meppen -- dmeppen@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP,
Katherine Carol Den Bleyker -- kdenbleyker@gordonrees.com --
Gordon and Rees LLP & Robert Wayne Feinstein --
rfeinstein@gordonrees.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP.


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Barnes" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-
03786 (N.D. Cal., August 20, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on the cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading privacy.

Monterey Financial Services, Inc. provides consumer financing,
debt recovery and loan servicing in Oceanside California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOODY'S CORP: Plaintiffs Want to Revive Claims Over "Cheyne SIV"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two plaintiffs suing subsidiaries of Moody's Corp. in relation to
credit ratings assigned to securities issued by Cheyne Finance are
seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims and also seeking
reversal of the Court's denial of class certification, according
to Moody's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating
agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the
fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012,
in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously
dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding
and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating
agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation
claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the
court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On
August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud
and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in
part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but
allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims
of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11
plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's
for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose
claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on
November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions,
reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously
dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of
one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April
24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14
plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated
to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as
against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation
on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of
two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May
23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims
and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class
certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76 million in total
compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on
the appeal.


MOODY'S CORP: Suit Over "Rhinebridge SIV" Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Moody's Corp. subsidiaries
over credit ratings assigned to securities issued by Rhinebridge
Plc, stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of all
remaining claims as against the remaining defendants, according to
Moody's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In October 2009, plaintiffs King County, Washington and Iowa
Student Loan Liquidity Corporation each filed substantially
identical putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York against two subsidiaries of the Company and several other
defendants, including two other rating agencies and IKB Deutsche
Industriebank AG. These actions arose out of investments in
securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called
Rhinebridge Plc (the "Rhinebridge SIV") and sought, among other
things, compensatory and punitive damages. Each complaint asserted
a claim for common law fraud against the rating agency defendants,
alleging, among other things, that the credit ratings assigned to
the securities issued by the Rhinebridge SIV were false and
misleading. The case was assigned to the same judge presiding over
the litigation concerning the Cheyne SIV, described above. In
April 2010, the court denied the rating agency defendants' motion
to dismiss. In June 2010, the court consolidated the two cases and
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other
things, added Morgan Stanley & Co. as a defendant. In January
2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted
the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that asserted claims
against the rating agency defendants for breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting
claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency
defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the new claims
except for the negligent misrepresentation claim and a claim for
aiding and abetting fraud; on September 28, 2012, after further
proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs did not seek class
certification. On September 7, 2012 the rating agencies filed a
motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims
against them. On January 3, 2013, the Court issued an order
dismissing the claim for aiding and abetting fraud against the
rating agencies but allowing the claim for fraud to proceed to
trial. In June 2012 and March 2013, respectively, defendants IKB
Deutsche Industriebank AG (and a related entity) and Fitch, Inc.
informed the court that they had executed confidential settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to a
confidential settlement agreement, the plaintiffs stipulated to
the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of all remaining claims
as against the remaining defendants, including Moody's, and the
Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013.


MOTORINO EAST: "Escobar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Escobar, Braulio Hernandez Velasquez, Carlos Eduardo Romero
Ospina, Jorge Anibal Garcia, Carlos Castillo, Javier Paredes,
Oliver Hernandez, Raphil Perez, Marcos Sanchez, and Vicente
Dionicio individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Motorino East Village Inc. (d/b/a Pizzeria Motorino), and
Dimitri Vlahakis, Case No. 1:14-cv-06760 (S.D.N.Y., August 20,
2014), seeks to recover overtime wage pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Motorino East Village Inc. and Dimitri Vlahakis own, operate, or
control an Italian Restaurant located at 349E 12th Street, New
York NY 10003 under the name Pizzeria Motorino.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      Michael Faillace & Associates, p.c
      60 East 42nd Street, suite 2020
      New York, New York 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


MOUNTAIN ENERGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees' Pension Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-
CIO/CLC and Brandt Hoag, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Mountain Energy Inc., Mountain
Energy Inc. Retirement plan, and Does 1-20, Case No. 2:14-cv-01116
(W.D. Pa., August 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically
by failing to establish to a 401K Plan for its employees, and
instead established a Simplied Employee Pension Individual
Retirement Account and failed to make the required contributions.

Mountain Energy Inc. is a Pennsylvania oil and gas production
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, 17th floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
      E-mail: jhurt@fdpklaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Player Objects to $75MM Concussion Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBSSports.com reports that former San Diego State football player
Anthony Nichols formally objected on Aug. 22 to the NCAA's $75
million concussion settlement, with his lawyer telling a judge the
deal is "a mess of a settlement."

Chicago attorney Jay Edelson filed a 28-page objection in the
Northern District of Illinois, arguing the settlement doesn't
cover medical costs for former college athletes as the suit
originally intended.  Mr. Edelson has represented Nichols and
former Pittsburgh football player Frank Moore since they attempted
to intervene in the Adrian Arrington settlement last October.
Only Nichols, a San Diego State offensive lineman from 1989 to
1992, is identified as objecting to the settlement.

In the court filing, Mr. Edelson claims that only about 3,500 of
the 4.2 million class members are expected to receive medical
monitoring tests over the 50-year span of the program.  He states
those tests will deliver to the class a total of "perhaps $140,000
actual value."

The NCAA and the plaintiffs announced a settlement July 29 that
would establish a 50-year medical monitoring program for all
current and former college athletes.  Out of the $75 million pot,
$70 million would go toward screening (minus up to nearly $16
million in attorney costs) and $5 million would be used for
research.

The settlement would cover only diagnostic medical expenses, not
actual treatment -- a criticism by some opponents of the deal.
Athletes would preserve their rights to individually sue
universities, conferences or the NCAA for personal-injury damages
and waive their claims collectively.

The plaintiffs previously showed how they came up with the $70
million figure for medical monitoring.  Part of that report said
college football players are three times more likely than the
general public to have symptoms related to chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE), a debilitating disease associated with
repetitive head trauma.

"If the NCAA gets away with this and forces millions of people to
forego the right to participate in a class action without getting
a single benefit in return, it will, in one fell swoop, eliminate
the vast majority of the personal injury liability that it is most
fearful of," Mr. Edelson wrote.

Mr. Edelson states the class claims are worth billions of dollars,
citing a statement co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Joe Siprut,
made to CBSSports.com on the morning of the settlement
announcement.  Mr. Edelson argues that the individual claims are
too small "to allow vindication."

Since there are very few individual concussion claims in court
now, "the alternative to a class action therefore isn't a
groundswell of individual claims -- it's essentially no claims --
which is the entire point of the class waiver," Mr. Edelson wrote.

Co-lead counsel for the Arrington plaintiffs, named after the
former Eastern Illinois football player who sued the NCAA in 2011,
expressed frustration at Mr. Edelson's claims and tactics
following a July 29 preliminary settlement hearing.  Steve Berman,
the Arrington plaintiffs' co-lead attorney, said medical expenses
aren't covered because the NCAA would not assume class-wide
liability since injuries vary based on individual cases. Also,
Berman said most athletes would have their treatment covered by
their own insurance.

"We're not letting the NCAA off easy," Mr. Berman said.  "The
notion that there are billions of dollars of claims out there is
ridiculous. . . . There's maybe two dozen concussion cases on file
in the country right now so Jay is just flat-out wrong, and he's
flat-out wrong on the law.

"Look, I represent people who have individual concussion claims.
I have a battery of experts that are needed to do the right things
for those kids in that case.  You can't do that in class-action.
(Edelson) doesn't even have a case on file and he's coming into
court telling us how we should be doing this?"

Mr. Edelson's previous claim that the settlement is simply about
attorneys fees is "sour grapes," Mr. Siprut said July 29.  "That
sounds like the words of someone who throws muck against the wall
and see if something sticks.  It's always easy to take potshots at
the attorneys because they might actually get paid for four years
of hard work."

Judge's biggest question with settlement

U.S. District Judge John Lee's biggest question at the hearing
about the settlement was a technical one: Can a settlement class
certified under one federal provision waive rights that might
otherwise only be properly pursued by a class certified under a
different provision? That issue is "going to be in some ways the
heart of the settlement to ensure that the rights of the absent
class members are protected," Judge Lee said.

The Arrington plaintiffs are trying to certify the class under a
"hybrid" option they say has been approved by the Seventh Circuit:
Combine Rule 23(b)(2) certification with the Rule 23(d) procedural
safeguards of notice and the right for class members to opt out.

The Arrington plaintiffs wrote in a filing earlier this month that
Rule 23(b)(2) is proper for certification "because the grounds for
liability -- the NCAA's failure to adopt consensus best practices
in concussion management -- are based on NCAA conduct that is
'generally applicable to the class.'"  Because of that, the
primarily relief sought in the settlement -- medical monitoring
and changes to the NCAA's concussion-management policies -- "is
injunctive or equitable in nature," the Arrington plaintiffs
wrote.  They added that the settlement class satisfies Rule
23(b)(3) requirements.

In his objection, Mr. Edelson claims the Seventh Circuit case law
cited by the Arrington plaintiffs are "red herrings" because they
"say nothing about allowing class damages releases . . . in
exchange for no relief." The attorneys' "eleventh-hour request" to
certify under Rule 23(b)(3) "doesn't magically make the release
less substantively troubling," Mr. Edelson wrote.

Mr. Edelson argues that nearly 90 percent of the class will
receive no benefit from the settlement.  He cites an expert report
in the settlement from Bruce Deal, who projected that 3,526
medical tests would be provided over the 50-year monitoring
period.

The remaining class members who supposedly benefit from the
settlement are 460,000 current college athletes, who "get nothing
other than the NCAA's promise to recommend to its member schools
that they update certain concussion guidelines," Mr. Edelson
wrote.

Mr. Edelson argues that the supposed injunctive relief of new NCAA
concussion guidelines are already in place and cites the NCAA's
claim that those changes were not a result of this litigation.
The objection states that approximately 262,000 athletes in non-
contact sports had no representation in negotiations.  The
settlement describes some safety requirements for NCAA contact
sports -- football, lacrosse, wrestling, ice hockey, field hockey,
soccer and basketball -- moving forward.

Because of that language, "the majority of student-athletes are
having their rights traded away for basically nothing, while the
select student-athletes who play sports within the Settlement's
narrow definition of 'Contact Sports' receive a promise from the
NCAA to recommend to its member institutions that they pass
guidelines already in effect," Mr. Edelson wrote.

An expert report in the settlement states the risk of CTE symptoms
in NCAA contact sports other than football is one-and-a-half times
higher than the general population.

Mr. Edelson's objection was submitted by seven law firms,
including Clifford Law Offices in Chicago.  That firm is led by
high-profile, personal-injury attorney Bob Clifford, whose office
has represented families of plane crash victims for 30 years.

Judge Lee will hold another settlement hearing on Sept. 19.


NBTY INC: Sued for Lying About Amount of Protein in Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY uses "protein spiking" to misrepresent the amount of whey
protein actually contained in its diet supplement, a class action
claims in New York Federal Court, reports Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Jason Mencer sued NBTY Inc., United States
Nutrition, and Healthwatchers on August 25, 2014, claiming they
sell Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey Protein that's spiked with
nitrogen, to exaggerate the measurement of protein in the stuff.

"The whey protein industry is a growing and extremely competitive
business environment," the complaint states, with the market
expected to grow by 62 percent by 2018, when it's predicted to hit
$7.8 billion.

"However, the price of wholesale whey protein keeps increasing and
is usually purchased for roughly $15-$18/kilo, making the profit
margins on whey protein powder products very low," according to
the complaint.

It adds: "In an effort to reduce protein manufacturing costs,
defendants add cheaper free form amino acids and non-protein
ingredients to increase the nitrogen content of the product's
protein powder.  Nitrogen is the 'tag' used by a common protein
content test to determine the amount of protein in a product; but
this is neither a direct measure of the actual protein content in
a product nor a measure of the type of nitrogen containing
compounds in a product.

"This act is commonly referred to as 'protein-spiking', 'nitrogen-
spiking' or 'amino-spiking', and was evidenced recently in the
2007 pet food incident, which lead to domestic recalls of these
products, and the 2008 Chinese milk powder scandal, when melamine,
a nitrogen-rich chemical, was added to raw materials to fake high
protein contents.

"As a result of defendants' practices, the consumer is left with a
product that contains approximately 30% less whey protein than
defendants represented."

A supine Congress has allowed diet supplements to be loosely
regulated in the United States.

Plaintiffs, who are from six states, seek class certification and
damages for unlawful trade practices, state consumer law
violations, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


NEST LABS: Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Denied
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied, without prejudice, a
motion to appoint interim class counsel in IN RE NEST LABS
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 14-CV-01363-BLF, (N.D. Cal.).

This is a putative consumer class action involving defendant Nest
Labs, Inc.'s allegedly misleading advertisement of its "Nest"
thermostat product. Before the Court was the motion by plaintiffs
Justin Darisse and Joshua Beloff to appoint law firms Bursor &
Fisher, P.A. and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP as "co-
lead interim class counsel."  The Defendant opposed this
appointment as premature.

The Court vacated the hearing scheduled for September 4, 2014.
A copy of Judge Freeman's August 18, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/53L69U from Leagle.com

Justin Darisse, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A.,
Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher,
P.A. & Annick Marie Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

Joshua Beloff, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes --
bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
-- Finkelstein Thompson LLP & Annick Marie Persinger --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Nest Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Jean Wilson --
BWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Brian Patrick
Hennessy -- BHennessy@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP &
James Patrick Corrigan -- PCorrigan@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins
Coie LLP.


NETFLIX INC: Court Issues Ruling in Discovery Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------
IN RE: NETFLIX PRIVACY LITIGATION, NO. C11-00379 EJD (HRL), (N.D.
Cal.) is a consolidated class action brought against Netflix,
Inc., on the grounds that Netflix unlawfully retained and
disclosed customers' personally identifiable information in
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2710.  Plaintiffs Jeff Milans and Peter Comstock, individually and
on behalf of the Class, filed an unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, which Judge Edward J. Davila
granted. Bradley Schulz, among others, filed an objection to the
Settlement. Judge Davila granted final approval of the Settlement.
Schulz appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Through email, Plaintiffs' counsel informed Bandas of Plaintiffs'
intent to file a motion to compel Schulz's deposition and asked
for Bandas's availability to meet and confer regarding their
positions. Plaintiffs' counsel attempted to schedule a meet and
confer three times by email and letter and three times by
telephone. Bandas failed to respond.

Because Bandas has refused to meet and confer with Plaintiffs'
counsel, Plaintiffs' motion to compel the deposition of and the
production of documents by Schulz is granted, ruled Magistrate
Judge Howard R. Lloyd in an order dated August 18, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/gub51O from Leagle.com.

The Court ordered Schulz to appear and testify at deposition and
produce documents in accordance with Judge Davila's Order Granting
Plaintiffs' Motion for Appeal Bonds and Granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Additional Discovery, within thirty 30 days.

Jeff Milans, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Jonathan Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Chandler Randolph Givens --
cgivens@edelson.com -- Edelson McGuire, LLC, Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, William Charles Gray --
wgray@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, James Dominick Larry --
nlarry@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C. & Mark Stephen Eisen --
meisen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

Jason Bernal, Consol Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge
Bower -- dbower@faruqilaw.com -- Law Office of David E. Bower.

Michael Rura, Consol Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge
Bower, Law Office of David E. Bower.

Peter Comstock, Consol Plaintiff, represented by David Christopher
Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens LLP, James
Dominick Larry, Edelson P.C., Mark Stephen Eisen, Edelson PC,
Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson PC & Sean Patrick Reis --
sreis@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C.

Michael Sevy, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc Lawrence
Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP &
Joseph Jeremy Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC.

Eric Wizenberg, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc Lawrence
Godino, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Netflix, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Eggleton -- keggleton@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati & Rodney Grant Strickland, Jr. -- rstrickland@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.


NEW GREAT NECK: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Miguel Baires and Francisco Clavelmeneses, individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated and as class
representatives v. The New Great Neck Car Wash, Inc. and Matthew
Silverman, Case No. 2:14-cv-04953 (E.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime premium pay and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The New Great Neck Car Wash, Inc. operates a car wash at 790
Northern Boulevard, Great Neck, New York 11021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
      David A. Robins, Esq.
      Robert D. Lipman, Esq.
      LIPMAN & PLESUR LLP
      500 North Broadway, Suite 105
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Telephone: (516) 931-0050
      Facsimile: (516) 931-0030
      E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com
              robins@lipmanplesur.com
              lipman@lipmanplesur.com


NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Federal Claims in "NYSPPSA" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Professional Process Servers Association
(NYSPPSA), Howard D. Clarke, and Stephen Boyko, Inc. brought a
putative class action against the City of New York and 38
individual defendants associated with the enforcement of City
process server rules, including elected officials, City employees,
and administrative law judges (City Defendants) in their official
and individual capacities. Plaintiffs contend that the City
administratively enforces process server laws and regulations
without authority. On this basis Plaintiffs bring claims under 42
U.S.C. 1983 (Section 1983), and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, et seq.
Plaintiffs also contend that certain provisions of the New York
City Administrative Code are unconstitutionally vague, and that
penalties the City imposes on process servers violate the
Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Finally, Plaintiffs bring a claim under New
York state law for defamation, and challenge several of the
Defendants' actions on state law grounds.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint.

District Judge Denise Cote, in an opinion and order August 18,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/RsUb4yfrom
Leagle.com, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the
federal claims.  The Court declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims.

"This litigation is at an early stage, and principles of judicial
economy do not counsel in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.
There is no reason why convenience favors resolution of the state
law claims in federal court as opposed to New York state court.
And issues of fairness and comity do not weigh in either
direction," Judge Cote concluded.

The case is New York State Professional Process Servers
Association, Inc. on behalf of itself and aggrieved members, and
Howard D. Clarke, and Stephen J. Boyko, Inc. d/b/a Consolidated
Claims Service, Individually, and as Representatives for all
similarly situated Process Server Individuals and Process Serving
Agencies as defined by the New York City Administrative Code,
Title 20, Chapter 2, Section 20-404, Plaintiffs, v. City of New
York and Michael T. Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio, Jonathan E. Mintz,
Alba Pico, Marla Tepper, Esq., Sanford Cohen, Esq. Nancy J.
Schindler, Esq. Bruce Dennis, Esq., James M. Plotkin, Esq.
Nicholas J. Minella, Esq., Alvin Liu, Esq. Shannon Bermingham,
Jordan Cohen, Esq., Philip Kimball, Esq. Lori Barrett, Esq. Megan
Roberts, Esq., Wanda Day, Esq., Fred R. Cantor, Esq., Allison Rene
Johnson, Esq., Eunice Rivera, G. Pikulina, P. Kumar, Michele
Mirro, Esq., Mitchell B. Nisonoff, Esq. Lee Fawkes, Esq. Steven T.
Kelly, Esq., Nancy Tumelty, Esq., Susan Kassapian, Esq., Maurice
Nwikpo-Oppong, Esq., Eryn A. DeFontes, Esq., Richard Zeitler, Jr.,
Esq., David Scott Paul, Esq., Shanet Viruet, Esq., and Judith
Gould, Esq., all Individually and in their capacities as officials
and employees of the City of New York, Defendants, NO. 14 CIV.
1266 (DLC), (S.D. N.Y.)

Tracy J. Harkins, Mount Sinai, NY, for Plaintiffs New York State
Professional Process Servers Association, Howard D. Clarke, and
Stephen Boyko, Inc.

Sherryl R. Neufeld, Mark W. Muschenheim, Jasmine M. Georges,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, New York,
for Defendants New York City and Individual City Defendants.

Walter A. Kretz, Jr., Scopetta Seiff Kretz & Abercrombie, LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendants Susan Kassapian and Michelle Miro.


OCTAGON INC: "Klein" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey R. Klein, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by Octagon, Inc., Octagon
Marketing and Athlete Representation, Octagon USA; and any other
subsidiaries or entities affiliated with or controlled by Octagon,
Inc., Octagon Marketing and Athlete Representation,  Octagon USA
v. Octagon, Inc., Octagon Marketing and Athlete Representation,
Octagon USA; and any other subsidiaries or entities affiliated
with or controlled by Octagon, Inc., Octagon Marketing and Athlete
Representation, Octagon USA, Case No. 1:14-cv-06770 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 21, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a global sports, entertainment, lifestyle
marketing, and talent representation agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kara S. Miller, Esq.
      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBJNDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, New York 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: kmiller@vandallp.com

         - and -


      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, New York 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


PAM'S BAKERY: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Jackson-Spenser, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly-situated v. Pamela Mckenzie a/k/a Pamela Mckenzie
Cummings, Case No. 1:14-cv-04985 (E.D.N.Y., August 21, 2014),
seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pamela Mckenzie is the owner of Pam's Bakery and Cake Decorating,
located at 4620 Church Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11203.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      Alexander Gastman, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11201
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com


PANASONIC CORP: Colluded in Sale of Capacitors, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Everett Ellis, Fredrick P. Hege, Jr., Mike Fisher, et al., v.
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03815 (N.D.
Cal., August 21, 2014), seeks damages under state antitrust,
unfair trade, unfair competition and consumer protection laws and
injunctive relief for the collusive and concerted restraint of
trade in Aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors.

The Defendants are leading manufacturers and direct competitors in
the global capacitors industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Stewart Robinson, Esq.
      ROBINSON CALCAGNIE & ROBINSON
      620 Newport Center Drive, 7th Floor
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 720-1288
      Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
      E-mail: drobinson@rcrlaw.net

         - and -

      Phillip Duncan, Esq.
      Richard Quintus, Esq.
      Justin Zachary, Esq.
      DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
      900 South Shackleford, Suite 725
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
      Telephone: (701) 228-7600
      Facsimile: (701) 228-0415
      E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com

         - and -

      Kent W. Emison, Esq.
      LANGDON & EMISON
      1828 Swift, Suite 303
      N Kansas City, Missouri 64116
      Telephone: (660) 259-6175
      Facsimile: (660) 259-4571
      E-mail: kent@lelaw.com

         - and -

      Richard Lombardo, Esq.
      SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN
      911 Main Street, Suite 2000
      Kansas City, Missouri 64105
      Telephone: (816) 931-0500
      Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
      E-mail: RLombardo@sls-law.com

         - and -

     William W. Heaton, Esq.
     HEATON & MOORE, P.C.
     44 North Second Street, Suite 1200
     Memphis, Tennessee 38103
     Telephone: (901) 526-5975
     Facsimile: (901 527-3633
     E-mail: wheaton@heatonandmoore.com


PENINIM OF AMERICA: Sued Over Sexual Assault of Jewish Girls
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Miller, Malka Miller, Staci Margulis, David Margulis, Eli
Rosen, Dovid Newman, and Chaim Dovid Pernikoff, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated class members v. Elimelech
Meisels, Rachel Slanger, Peninim of America, Inc., Peninim
Seminary, Binas Bais Yaakov Seminary, Chedvas Bais Yaakov
Seminary, Keser Chaya Seminary, Yaakov Yarmish, Tzvi Gartner, and
as yet Unknown Co-conspirators, Case No. 1:14-cv-05937 (N.D. Ill.,
August 4, 2014), engaged in a fraudulent and unlawful scheme to
induce Orthodox Jewish parents from across the United States to
send their daughters to various seminaries in Israel under the
guise of educational and spiritual development.  The Defendants'
true aim was to fraudulently and unlawfully take thousands of
dollars from each of these parents and to induce these girls, by
telephone, mail, wire and other means, to travel thousands of
miles outside the United States and away from their parents for
the purpose of sexually assaulting these vulnerable young girls.

The Defendants own and operate a Jewish Orthodox organization with
its primary office located in Lakewood, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shneur Z. Nathan, Esq.
      Andrew M. Hale, Esq.
      HALE LAW LLC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 330
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 341-9646
      E-mail: snathan@ahalelaw.com
              ahale@ahalelaw.com


PG&E CORP: Cal. Customers Appeal Nixing of Suit Over Use of Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Customers of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company
in California are appealing the dismissal of their suit over
alleged mis-appropriation of funds, according to the company's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

In August 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco
Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (and other unnamed defendants) by individuals who
seek certification of a class consisting of all California
residents who were customers of the Utility between 1997 and 2010,
with certain exceptions.  The plaintiffs allege that the Utility
collected more than $100 million in customer rates from 1997
through 2010 for the purpose of various safety measures and
operations projects but instead used the funds for general
corporate purposes such as executive compensation and bonuses.
The plaintiffs allege that PG&E Corporation and the Utility
engaged in unfair business practices in violation of California
state law.  The plaintiffs seek restitution and disgorgement, as
well as compensatory and punitive damages.  PG&E Corporation and
the Utility contest the plaintiffs' allegations.  In May 2013, the
court granted PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's request to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the CPUC has exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues raised by the plaintiffs'
allegations.  The plaintiffs have appealed the court's ruling to
the California Court of Appeal.


PIONEER CREDIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "San Jose" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronaldo San Jose, Erlinda San Jose, Rolando San Jose, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pioneer Credit
Recovery, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Case No. 2:14-cv-06584 (C.D. Cal., August 21, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiffs on the cellular telephones, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is a national leader in credit
recovery on defaulted debt specializing in government collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
      ASAF LAW
      8730 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 310
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (424) 254-8870
      Facsimile: (888) 254-2651
      E-mail: asaf@lawasaf.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended "White" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel denied a motion to dismiss the
case captioned NELSON WHITE, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE PNC
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-7928, (E.D. Pa.).

This is a putative class action brought by homeowners claiming
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974
(RESPA). Specifically, the plaintiffs claim the defendants carried
out a "captive reinsurance scheme," which allowed for fees or
kickbacks prohibited by section 8 of RESPA. The Court previously
dismissed the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs
failed to provide enough factual information to show that
equitable tolling of RESPA's statute of limitations could be
warranted. The Court, however, allowed the plaintiffs to amend the
complaint to include this information. Defendants PNC, Mortgage
Guaranty, Genworth, Republic, and Radian again moved to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of Judge Stengel's August 18, 2014 memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/5jwbVnfrom Leagle.com.

NELSON WHITE, JR., Plaintiff, represented by EDWARD W. CIOLKO,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, AMANDA TRASK, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP &
TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

LISA WHITE, Plaintiff, represented by EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, AMANDA TRASK, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & TERENCE
S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

CHARLES HIGHTOWER, Plaintiff, represented by EDWARD W. CIOLKO,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, AMANDA TRASK, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP &
TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

COLLEEN HIGHTOWER, Plaintiff, represented by EDWARD W. CIOLKO,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, AMANDA TRASK, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP &
TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

GEORGE G. DONALD, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH H. MELTZER,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

LUZ GARCIA, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &
CHECK, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.

MICHELLE B. JOHNSTON, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH H. MELTZER,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

KEVIN ZIELINSKI, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH H. MELTZER,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

DAN B. JOHNSTON, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH H. MELTZER,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

JILL CRUMPLER, Plaintiff, represented by JOSEPH H. MELTZER,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD W. CIOLKO, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF, KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

MORTGAGE GUARANTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
ERIN J. DOLFI, ROBB LEONARD MULVIHILL LLP, MARK A. MARTINI, ROBB,
LEONARD & MULVIHILL, PHILIP C. BABLER, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, BRUCE
E. RENDE, ROBB LEONARD MULVIHILL LLP & MAX B. CHESTER, FOLEY &
LARDNER.

GENWORTH MORTGAGE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by
BENITO DELFIN, JR., DENTONS US LLP, MELANIE A. MCCAMMON, DENTONS
US LLP, REID L. ASHINOFF, DENTON US LLP, AYA M. SALEM, CONRAD
O'BRIEN & NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA, CONRAD O'BRIEN.

REPUBLIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
STEVEN M. COREN, KAUFMAN COREN & RESS PC, WILLIAM L. KIRKMAN,
KIRKMAN LAW FIRM PLLC & MATTHEW R. WILLIAMS, KAUFMAN COREN & RESS
PC.

RADIAN GUARANTY INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID SMITH,
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL AND LEWIS L.L.P., STEPHEN ANDREW FOGDALL,
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP & THERESA E. LOSCALZO,
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP.

THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by
ANDREW J. SOVEN, REED SMITH, LLP, DANIEL I. BOOKER, REED SMITH LLP
& MARC A. GOLDICH, REED SMITH LLP.


PPL CORP: Court Junks RCRA Claims in Cane Run Environmental Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims against PPL Corporation
and all but one of its Clean Air Act claims, but declined to
dismiss their common law tort claims, according to the company's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On December 16, 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA.
In addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of
nuisance, trespass and negligence.  These plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney
fees, for the alleged statutory violations.  Under the common law
claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive
damages for property damage and diminished property values for a
class consisting of residents within four miles of the plant.  In
their individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek compensation
for alleged adverse health effects.  In response to a motion to
dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, on July 17, 2014 the court
dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but one of its Clean
Air Act claims, but declined to dismiss their common law tort
claims.  PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this
matter or the potential impact on operations of the Cane Run
plant.  LG&E has previously announced that it anticipates retiring
the coal-fired units at Cane Run before the end of 2015.


PROSPERITY BANCSHARES: Faces "Franco" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Franco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Prosperity Bancshares, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00349
(S.D. Tex., August 20, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, statutory liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. is a Texas based regional financial
holding company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
      115 Travis, Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone; (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com


QUEENSLAND: United Firefighers' Union Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
TheChronicle reports that Queensland'S part-time firefighters are
copping a raw deal from the state government, according to a class
action filed by the United Firefighters' Union Queensland against
the state government.

The union alleges these "auxiliary" staff have had no formal pay
award since the end of last year after the LNP Government moved
legislation to null the agreement.  Much of regional and rural
Queensland relies almost entirely on auxiliary firefighters,
including huge swathes of central, south-west and south-east parts
of the state.

In a statement, the UFUQ said the firefighters worked other jobs
but were expected to be available to respond to emergencies "24
hours a day, seven days a week, and all public holidays".

A spokesman for Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services
Jack Dempsey MP pointed to the government's delivery of a
inflation-rate pay increase for auxiliaries.

"The Queensland Government is proactively working with the
Queensland Auxiliary Firefighters Association to deliver better
outcomes and a fairer award for auxiliaries," he said.

"Earlier this year the Government signed a charter with the
Auxiliary Firefighters Association which ensured that auxiliaries
voices are heard during decision making. This is the first charter
of its kind and delivers on a long held demand of the Association.

"As part of our revitalization of conditions for auxiliaries we've
already delivered a 2.2% pay increase along with other
improvements that mean auxiliaries and their families are better
off."

The minister did not respond to questions regarding the class
action suit.

State secretary John Oliver said despite the union's attempts to
negotiation with the government, "the Newman Government have not
been listening to these firies, have treated them with arrogance
and contempt, and is out of touch with what is happening in
emergency situations every day".

"We have brought this class action in the face of the government's
persistent refusal to treat auxiliary firefighters fairly," he
said.

"We are about to enter into one of the most severe fire seasons in
decades, it is about time these unfair contracts are fixed.

"Firies are sick of the government playing politics and just want
fair employment contracts."

The class action has been lodged with the Queensland Industrial
Relations Commission on behalf of about 2000 Queensland
firefighters.

Auxiliary firefighters are used in:

Central Queensland:

Blackwater
Capella
Clermont
Emerald
Middlemount
Biloela
Walkerston
Dysart
Glenden
Gracemere
Moranbah
Proserpine
Sarina

South West Queensland

Dalby
Miles
Stanthorpe
Childers
Tara
St George
Roma
Surat
Wandoan

"North Coast" Queensland

Bargara
Burnett Heads
Childers
Gin Gin
Beerwah
Kawana
Kenilworth
Buderim
Coolum Beach
Pomona
Tewantin
Rainbow Beach

South East / Brisbane

Kilcoy
Woodford
Gatton
Laidley
Rosewood
Mount Tamborine
Bribie Island (with single officer)


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement Reached in Celera Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in In re Celera Corp. Securities
Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, according to Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's
stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations
were made. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was
denied. Celera and the director and officer defendants have
reached a tentative agreement in principle to settle this action,
which is subject to satisfactory documentation of the agreement
and court approval. The settlement is expected to be fully covered
by insurance.


RE/MAX GOLD: Faces Suit Over Defective Kitec Aluminum Pipes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Re/Max Gold sold houses with
defective Kitec aluminum pipes with brass fittings, which
separate, corrode and fail, a class action claims in Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento.


S.K. FOODS: Obtains Final Approval of Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted final approval of the
class and collective actions settlements in the case captioned
FOUR IN ONE COMPANY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. S.K. FOODS,
L.P., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:08-CV-3017 KJM EFB, (E.D. Cal.).

The court certified the class defined as "All persons and entities
that purchased tomato paste, tomato sauce, diced tomatoes or any
other processed tomato product directly from Ingomar Packing
Company, Los Gatos Tomato Products, or SK Foods, L.P. where the
purchase was made pursuant to a contract made between February 1,
2005 and December 31, 2008.

Excluded from the class are any judicial officer who is assigned
to hear any aspect of the Four In One Company action or any
related action, governmental entities, defendants, coconspirators,
purchasers who have an Individual Settlement Agreement (as defined
in the Settlement Agreement) with Defendant(s), the present and
former parents, predecessors, subsidiaries and affiliates of any
of the foregoing, and the Plaintiffs in Case No. 09-cv-00208
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

The court approved the terms of the settlement agreements as fair,
reasonable, and adequate as they apply to the class, and directs
consummation of all the agreements' terms and provisions.

The settlement agreements will be binding on Ingomar, Los Gatos
and all plaintiffs, including all members of the class, under the
settlement agreements.

The court dismisses on the merits and with prejudice the
consolidated class action complaint as to Ingomar and Los Gatos.

Class counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of $1.6 million,
and costs in the amount of $267,926.23.

The court in its discretion declined to maintain jurisdiction to
enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreements.  Unless
there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction,
enforcement of the agreements is for the state courts, wrote Judge
Mueller in his August 15, 2014 amended order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/U59feafrom Leagle.com.

Four in One Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N.
Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Dana Statsky Smith, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP,
Donald A. Ecklund, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart &
Olstein, James E. Cecchi, Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi,
Stewart and Olstein, Joey Dean Horton, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan LLP, Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Stanley
D. Bernstein, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP, Steig D Olson, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Stephaine M. Beige, Bernstein
Liebhard, LLP, Stephen R. Neuwirth, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
& Hedges, LLP & Tania T. Taveras, Bernstein Liebhard, LLP.

Cliffstar Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur N. Bailey,
Hausfeld LLP, Steig D Olson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith
LLP, Holly Joy Stirling, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith, LLP, Lucas E Gilmore, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP & Bruce L Simon, Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny.

SK Foods, L.P., Defendant, represented by Paul Robert Griffin,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Robert Bernard Pringle, Winston and Strawn &
Jonathan E Swartz, Winston and Strawn LLP.

Randall Rahal, Defendant, represented by David Warren Dratman,
David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Intramark USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Warren
Dratman, David W. Dratman, Attorney at Law.

Scott Salyer, Defendant, represented by Malcolm S Segal, Segal &
Associates, PC & James P. Mayo, Segal & Kirby LLP.

Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter 11 Trustee for SK Foods, LP, Defendant,
represented by Gregory C Nuti, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
LLP.

United States of America, Intervenor, represented by Sean C.
Flynn, United States Attorney's Office.

US Department of Justice, Intervenor, represented by Anna Tryon
Pletcher, Richard B. Cohen & Tai Snow Milder, U.S. DOJ - Antitrust
Division.

Bruce Foods Corporation, Neutral, represented by Alexandra S.
Bernay, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney,
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP, Carmen Anthony
Medici, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock,
Hausfeld Llp, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason,
LLP, Hilary K. Ratway, Hausfeld, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Arthur N. Bailey,
Hausfeld LLP, Holly Joy Stirling, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez & Smith, LLP, Kimberly Ann Kralowec, The Kralowec Law
Group, Lucas E Gilmore, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
& Roger M. Schrimp, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pacher & Silva.

Diversified Foods and Seasonings, Inc., Neutral, represented by
Arthur N. Bailey, Hausfeld LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein & Joseph R. Saveri, Saveri Law Firm.

Morning Star Packing Company, Neutral, represented by Alex James
Kachmar, Jr, Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin.

L'Ottavo Ristorante, et al., Neutral, represented by Jeff S.
Westerman, Westerman Law Corp.


SANDISK CORP: Nov. 14 Certification Hearing in Ritz Camera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on class certification in the Ritz Camera Federal
Antitrust Class Action against Sandisk Corporation is scheduled
for November 14, 2014, according to the company's July 31, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2014.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers
of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures
controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present.
The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as
a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition
for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the
portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker
Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the
Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying
SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal
Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District
Court. Discovery is now open in the District Court. On February
20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert Giuliano, the
Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be substituted as
the plaintiff in this case, which the District Court granted on
July 5, 2013. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the
Trustee's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint,
which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as
named plaintiffs. Ritz has sought leave to file a fourth amended
complaint, which would add a cause of action for attempted
monopolization, add another named plaintiff and extend the class
period to July 1997. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint. The District Court has taken all of the
motions under submission. The hearing on class certification is
scheduled for November 14, 2014.


SANDISK CORP: SD-3C Denied Rehearing in Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has denied
defendants' petition for rehearing in a suit against SD-3C, LLC
over alleged violation of antitrust law, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung") filed
an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court") alleging various claims against
Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
(collectively, "Panasonic") and SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C") under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and
under California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to
the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The complaint
seeks an injunction against collection of Secure Digital ("SD")
card royalties, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-
judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as a
declaration that Panasonic and SD-3C engaged in patent misuse and
that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held
unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this
case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba,
and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning
the Company. As a member of SD-3C, the Company may be responsible
for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief,
including an injunction or declaration of patent misuse, could
result in a loss of revenue to the Company. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") on October 14, 2010. On August 25, 2011,
the District Court dismissed the patent misuse claim with
prejudice but gave Samsung leave to amend its other claims. On
January 3, 2012, the District Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss Samsung's complaint without leave to amend. Samsung
appealed. On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the "Appeals Court") issued a decision reversing
the District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds
and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. The Appeals Court has denied defendants' petition for
rehearing.


SANDISK CORP: SD-3C to Challenge Reversal of Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
SD-3C, LLC, and other defendants filed a petition for rehearing
after an appeals court reversed a District Court's dismissal of
the case, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with
the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the
royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation
of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws,
which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for
SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by
reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and
SD-3C LLC described above. On May 21, 2012, the District Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed. On May 14, 2014, the appeals court
issued a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal on
statute of limitations grounds and remanding the case to the
District Court for further proceedings. Defendants timely filed a
petition for rehearing with the appeals court. The parties are
awaiting a ruling on the petition.


SANDISK CORP: Cal. Court Consolidates Stock Suit v. Fusion-io
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California consolidated securities cases against Fusion-io, Inc.
and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint,
according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion-io and certain of its
officers (the "defendants") were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (Denenberg v. Fusion-io, Inc. et
al.; Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.;
Marriott v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion-
io's common stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013,
and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
between January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints
generally allege violations of the federal securities laws arising
out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during
the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other
things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class. On June 10, 2014, the Court
consolidated the cases, appointed a lead plaintiff, and ordered
plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint.


SENECA SAWMILL: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Allen Scott individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Seneca Sawmill Company, an Oregon corporation, Case
No. 6:14-cv-01337 (D. Ore., August 20, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime hours worked over 40 in
a workweek.

Seneca Sawmill Company owns and operates a lumber mill and timber
products manufacturing business in Lane County, Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
      LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
      44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
      Eugene, OR 97401
      Telephone: (541) 345-2376
      Facsimile: (541) 345-2377
      E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com


SHENGDATECH INC: Mudd & Saidman Dismissed From Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of ShengdaTech, Inc. brought suit against ShengdaTech
and its officers and directors for securities fraud.  Defendants
A. Carl Mudd and Sheldon B. Saidman moved to dismiss the Third
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which District Judge
Lorna G. Schofield granted, in its entirety, according to an
Opinion and Order dated Aug. 12, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/wBv1qgfrom Leagle.com.

Messrs. Mudd and Saidman became members of ShengdaTech's five-
member Board of Directors in February 2007, and both served on its
three-member Audit Committee, which Mr. Mudd chaired.

In a Form 8-K filed on May 5, 2011, ShengdaTech announced that
KPMG HK's audit reports on the Company's year-end financial
statements for 2008 and 2009 should no longer be considered
reliable.  Later that month, the Special Committee retained the
law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP to take over the
internal investigation. On August 19, 2011, Skadden presented to
the Special Committee its preliminary report, in which it
"confirmed material irregularities and/or inaccuracies in the
financial records of the Company." On the same day, the Special
Committee authorized and directed ShengdaTech to file a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Both Messrs. Mudd and Saidman signed ShengdaTech's Forms 10-K for
the years ending 2006 to 2009.

Mesrs. Mudd and Saidman also sat on the Board's Compensation
Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.

The 2009 Form 10-K stated that both Defendants were qualified to
serve on the ShengdaTech Board because of their "extensive
knowledge" of ShengdaTech. For their positions, they were
compensated as follows: Defendant Mudd received $75,000 in cash
annually for 2008 and 2009, plus $58,945 in options for 2008; and
Defendant Saidman received $35,000 in cash annually for 2008 and
2009.

Donald D. Yaw, Lead Plaintiff, is represented by Mario Alba, Jr,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Avital Orly Malina, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Edward Y. Kroub, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Michael Gerard Capeci, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Edward J. Schaul, Lead Plaintiff, is represented by Mario Alba,
Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Avital Orly Malina, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Edward Y. Kroub, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Michael Gerard Capeci, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

James Thomas Turner, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, is represented by Mario Alba, Jr,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Erik S. Mathes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, is represented by Donald R.
Hall, Jr, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Frederic Scott Fox, Sr,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Hae Sung Nam, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP & Irina Kobylevsky, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Marlon Fund SICA V PLC, Movant, is represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Thomas Loomis, Movant, is represented by Irina Kobylevsky, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Shadas, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, is The Rosen Law
Firm P.A..

Shengdatech, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Miriam G. Bahcall,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Robert Allen Horowitz, Greenberg Traurig,
LLP.

KPMG LLP, Defendant, is represented by Kevin Michael Hodges,
Williams & Connolly LLP, Benjamin M. Greenblum, Williams &
Connolly LLP & William Pruitt Ashworth, Williams & Connolly LLP.
KPMG Hong Kong, Defendant, represented by Ari Micah Selman,
Bingham McCutchen LLP.

KPMG, Defendant, is represented by Ari Micah Selman, Bingham
McCutchen LLP & Steven W. Hansen, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

KPMG, a Hong Kong Partnership, Defendant, is represented by
Jeffrey Q. Smith, Bingham McCutchen LLP.

KPMG Hong Kong, Defendant-in-Rem, is represented by Jeffrey Q.
Smith, Bingham McCutchen LLP.


SOOKK HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mainor Salvador Morales, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Sookk Hospitality, Inc. (d/b/a Sookk
Hospitality), Suanploiwisoot and John Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-06762
(S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Sookk Hospitality, Inc. is a Thai restaurant owned by Suanploi
Wisoot located at 2686 Broadway, New York, New York 10025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, New York 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200


STAMINA GRILL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo de los Santos and Ernesto Licona Perez , individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Stamina Grill & Juice
Bar Inc. (d/b/a Stamina Grill & Juice Bar) and Chris Pizzimenti,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06761 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014), seeks to
recover overtime wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stamina Grill & Juice Bar Inc. and Chris Pizzimenti own, operate,
or control a Juice shop/health food restaurant located at 80
Nassau Street, New York, New York 10038.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      Michael Faillace & Associates, p.c
      60 East 42nd Street, suite 2020
      New York, New York 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


STARWOOD HOTELS: Mo. Sup. Ct. Reverses Ruling in "Tolentino" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Andro Tolentino, Appellant, v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, Inc., et al., Westin Hotel Management, LP, Respondents,
NO. SC 93379, Andro Tolentino appeals the circuit court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Inc. and Westin Hotel Management L.P.

Mr. Tolentino filed suit pursuant to the Missouri Minimum Wage Law
(MMWL), section 290.500,1 et seq., alleging that Respondents, as
his joint employer along with Giant Labor Services Inc., (GLS),
was liable for payment of the minimum wage. The court found that
there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether
Respondents were Mr. Tolentino's employer. The circuit court
entered summary judgment in favor of Respondents on grounds that
Respondents adequately compensated Mr. Tolentino and that
Respondents could not be liable for the alleged wage deficiency
because it was caused by GLS's unforeseeable, illegal wage
deductions.

In an opinion dated August 19, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/vsqKHhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Richard B. Teitelman
of the Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc, reversed the circuit
court judgment, and remanded the case.

"Respondents' duty to pay a minimum wage was not contingent on
GLS's acts or omissions," Judge Teitelman pointed out. "Instead,
Respondents had an independent statutory duty as Tolentino's
employer to pay him a minimum wage. GLS's illegal wage deductions,
even if unknown or unforeseen by Respondents, do not absolve
Respondents of their MMWL obligations as an employer. Even if
Respondents remitted sufficient funds to GLS to enable GLS to pay
the minimum wage, Respondents, if found to be Tolentino's
employer, are not absolved from MMWL liability due to GLS's
failure to pay a minimum wage to Tolentino."


STURM FOODS: Denial of Coffee Lovers Class Certification Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who bought Grove Square Coffee pods, a knock-off version
of Keurig's K-cups that contain instant coffee rather than fresh
coffee grounds, have asserted a common claim that the product's
packaging deliberately mislead them, reports Jack Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a 7th Circuit ruling.

"This case is about coffee," the 7th Circuit's 27-page
opinion begins.  "Not just any coffee -- it is about the
individual coffee pods that are used in the popular Keurig
coffeemakers.  The Keurig system solved a problem with which
coffee drinkers had struggled for years: how to make individual
portions of fresh-brewed coffee in a tidy, flavorful, easy, and
relatively inexpensive way."

Keurig's patent protection on the pods used with its machine,
known as K-cups, expired in 2012.

But Sturm Foods wanted a jumpstart on nabbing a piece of Keurig's
market, and introduced a product called Grove Square Coffee (GSC)
in 2010 that mimicked the external K-cup design, but lacked a
filter on the inside.

Without a filter, Sturm could not use fresh coffee grounds, and
instead used instant coffee in its pods.

However, Sturm's consultants allegedly advised that "use of the
word 'instant' is a real no-no," so Sturm's packaging for its pods
describe the product as "naturally roasted soluble and microground
Arabica coffee."

The package showed fresh beans on the front, and set forth a
"Coffee Lover's Bill of Rights," including the right to a "fresh
cup," but did not mention that the pod contained only a dusting of
fresh coffee on top of instant chunks.

In addition, the package warns users not to remove the foil seal
on top of the pod, stating that the cup will not work in the
coffee maker without it -- a false claim, possibly intended to
ensure the buyer did not view the contents of the pod.

These marketing ploys were successful, as studies showed very few
consumers equated "soluble" coffee with "instant" coffee.

In addition, Sturm priced its pods at near-premium level, selling
its pods at three to four times the price of instant coffee.

But consumers were not fooled by their taste buds: "The public
response after the release of GSC was awful.  The day after the
product started selling in Wal-Mart stores, Sturm emailed its
employees to request that the legal department, not the quality
control or sales department, be immediately informed about any
complaints regarding GSC," according to the judgment.

One retailer, Discount Coffee, is purported to have told Sturm
that its product "has been the poorest performing introductory
product that we have had in our 12 year history."  Others
complained to the Better Business Bureau.

In response, Sturm allegedly encouraged its employees to write
fictitious favorable reviews online, with the help [of its] the
marking department.

A federal judge refused to certify the class, but the 7th Circuit
reversed on August 22, 2014.

"The question whether the GSC packaging was likely to mislead a
reasonable consumer is common to the claims of every class member.
(Note that this is an objective question, not one that depends on
each purchaser's subjective understanding of the package.)  The
district court abused its discretion in failing to recognize that
this question satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule
23(a)(2)," Judge Diane Wood said, writing for the three-judge
panel.

The court said this case was "quite similar" issue in POM
Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, where the Supreme Court upheld a deceptive
practice action against the Coke company for labeling a juice
product as "pomegranate-blueberry," when it contained 0.3 percent
pomegranate juice and 0.2 percent blueberry juice.

"With respect to the misleading nature of the packaging, the
district court had almost nothing to say.  This is it: 'The court
has seen the packaging at issue -- plaintiffs bring it to each
hearing -- and finds that it is not designed to mislead consumers.
It says what it is.'  That is a conclusion, not a reason," Wood
said.  "It appears to assume that a package cannot be misleading
if it does not contain literal falsehoods.  But that is not the
law.  Moreover -- ironically -- it appears the district court
itself was confused about the product: the court's analysis
reveals that it failed to understand that 'soluble' coffee and
'microground' coffee are not the same thing."

The appellate case is Linda Suchanek, et al., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Sturm Foods, Inc., and
Treehouse Foods, Inc., Case No. 13-3843, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


TBC RETAIL: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Gordon" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gordon, Tavis Mcneil, Donald Wrighton, Nicholas Cole, Jacob
Grisson and Dawn Dewey, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. TBC Retail Group, Inc., d/b/a Tire Kingdom,
Case No. 2:14-cv-03365 (D.S.C., August 20, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

TBC Retail Group, Inc owns and operates tire and automotive
service centers under the trade names Tire Kingdom, Merchant's
Tire & Auto Centers, and National Tire & Battery throughout South
Carolina and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

         - and -

      William Clark Tucker, Esq.
      TUCKER LAW FIRM
      690 Berkmar Circle, Suite A
      Charlottesville, VA 22902
      Telephone: (434) 978-0100
      Facsimile: (434) 978-0101
      E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com


TD BANK: Sued Over Failure to Implement Breastfeeding Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aida Lico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  TD Bank, N.A., Richard Catalano, Robert Bullock,
Cassandra Bardoo and TD Bank US Holding Company, Case No. :14-cv-
04729 (E.D.N.Y., August 8, 2014), alleges that the Defendants have
not implemented breastfeeding and lactation policies which conform
to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amendments to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national association with corporate offices
located at 2 Portland Square, Portland, Maine 04112-9540 and 2035
Limestone Road, Wilmington, Delaware, 19808.

Richard Catalano is TD Bank, N.A.'s Human Resources Partner.

Robert Bullock is the manager of TD Bank, N.A.

Cassandra Bardoo is the Sales and Services Manager of the TD Bank,
N.A.'s East Meadow branch.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER, PC
      3 School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


TYSON FOODS: 10th Cir. Upholds Dist. Ct. Ruling in Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of employees filed class and collective actions against
Tyson Foods, Inc., seeking unpaid wages for time spent on pre- and
post-shift activities. After the employees obtained a sizeable
verdict and fee award, Tyson unsuccessfully moved for judgment as
a matter of law. On appeal, Tyson: (1) challenges the judgment and
denial of the motion for judgment as a matter of law, and (2)
argues that the fee award was excessive.

The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, in an opinion
dated August 19, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Bz2Bbqfrom Leagle.com, rejected Tyson's contentions
and affirmed the district court ruling, saying the Plaintiffs
presented sufficient evidence of undercompensation and the
district court acted within its discretion in setting the fee
award.

The district court did not err in denying Tyson's motion for
judgment as a matter of law or in setting the amount of attorneys'
fees awarded to the Plaintiffs, the Tenth Circuit added.

The case is ADELINA GARCIA; ANTONIO GARCIA; JERONIMO VARGAS-VERA;
EFRAIN AGUILAR; PAULINA AGUILAR; ADELAIDA AGUIRRE; JOSE R.
AGUIRRE; SALVADOR ALMANZA; MIGUEL AMAYA; ROGELIO ANDRADE; JESUS
ANGUIANO; EFIGENIA ARANA; JOSE R. ARANA; RAMON ARANA; ALMA
ARMENDARIZ; JORGE L. BANDA VALADEZ; DELFINO BARRAGAN; LUCIA
BARRAGAN; RAMON P. BARRAGAN; HOLGA BENITEZ; BALTAZAR BONILLA;
MARIA GUADALUPE BONILLA; CATALINA BUSTILLOS; BERNARDO CALDERON;
ETELVINA CALDERON; GLORIA CALZADA DE CARILLO; MANUEL CALZADILLAS;
JOAQUIN CAMACHO; ROBERTO CANO; ROSA M. CANO; ALBERTO CARRILLO;
JAVIER CARRAVAJAL; LUIS CASTANON; MARIA ROSARIO CASTILLO; VICTOR
CASTILLO; DAVID CASTRO; CIPRIANO CERNA; FLAVIO CHAVEZ; JOSE A.
CHAVEZ; GRISELDA CLARO; JESUS CLARO; JOSE L. CONTRERAS; ELISEO
PEREZ CORREA; AGUSTIN CRUZ; FLOR ANGELA CRUZ; LORENZO CRUZ;
SOCORRO DE LEON; AURORA CHAVEZ DE MONTES; JAVIER DELGADO; JOSE N.
DELGADO; LILIANA MARTINEZ DELGADO; LOREZO DELGADO; GILDARDO RAMON
DIAZ; ROSA D. DIAZ; CARMELO G. DIAZ-SANTAMARIA; ANA DURAN; EDGAR
E. DURAN; ABE DYCK; ELIZABETH DYCK; FERNANDO H. ESCALANTE; MARINA
ESCALANTE; CANDIDO HERNANDEZ ESCOBEDO; CARLOS E. ESPINO; FRANCISCO
ESTRADA; HUMBERTO ESTRADA; MARIA ESTRADA; AIDE B. ESTRADA VITAL;
JESUS FELIX; JOSE FLORES; JUAN JOSE FLORES; TOMASA FRAIRE; ERASMO
GALAN; MARICELA GALAN; ROMUALDO GALAN; GLORIA GALAVIZ; ROCIO
GALAVIZ; CIRO GALVEZ; SILVIA REYES GALVEZ; AGUSTIN GARCIA; BERTHA
GARCIA; HUMBERTO PEREZ GARCIA; LUZ E. GARCIA; MAURO GARCIA; MOISES
GARCIA; MARIA S. GLORIA; ELIA GOITIA; MELQUIADES GONZALES; JUAN M.
GONZALEZ; MARIA T. GONZALES; MIGUEL LORENZO GONZALEZ; ROSARI
MELENDEZ GRANDE; MANUEL GUERRERO; SAMUEL GUEVARA; ANGEL R.
GUTIERREZ; EUSEBIO GUZMAN; JUANA GUZMAN; LETICIA GUZMAN; ROSENDO
GUZMAN; SILVIA GUZMAN; ELIZABETH C. HAMILTON; HERBER RUFINO
HENRIQUEZ; ALBERTO HERNANDEZ; EFREN HERNANDEZ; ELIDA HERNANDEZ;
FELICIANO HERNANDEZ; FIDEL HERNANDEZ; GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ; JESUS
HERNANDEZ; JORGE HERNANDEZ; MARIA HERNANDEZ; MIGUEL ANGEL
HERNANDEZ; ROSA HERNANDEZ; WENCESLAO C. HERNANDEZ; WILFRIDO
HERNANDEZ; ADRIAN S. HERRADA; AIDA HERRADA; ALFONSO HERRADA; MARIA
GUADALUPE HERRADA; ELIZABETH HERRADA DE CRUZ; RANDY HOSKINSON;
OSCAR INTERIANO; MARTIN H. ISCO; MARGARITA LEANOS; PEDRO LEYVA;
CELSA LEYVA DE GARCIA; BLANCA E. LIRA; DIANA LOPEZ; GENARO LOPEZ;
LAURA LOPEZ; LAURO LOPEZ; MARGARITO LOPEZ; MARIA DEL CARMEN LOPEZ;
MARIA DE LA LUZ LOPEZ; MAURA LOPEZ; MIGUEL A. LOPEZ; MIGUEL Z.
LOPEZ; RODOLFO LOPEZ; MODESTO LOYA; JOSE A. LUJAN; MANUELA O.
GARAY DE LUJAN; BEATRIZ MADERA; MONICA MARMOLEJO; FELICIANO
MARTINEZ; FIDEL MARTINEZ; GANDINO MARTINEZ; LETICIA MARTINEZ;
NESTOR MARTINEZ; RAFAELA ORTIZ MARTINEZ; SATURNINO MARTINEZ; MARIO
MAYA; DOMINGO MARTIN MEDINA; RAMIRO MEJIA; MARIA DORA MENDEZ;
RODOLFO MENDEZ; BEATRIZ MENDOZA; IRENE E. MERINO; DIONILA
MEZQUITA; MARIA MOLINA; MAXIO A. MOLINA; SERGIO A. MONRREAL-ROCHA;
RAUL MONRROY; ALFONSO MONTANO; LUIS MONTERROZA; ADRIAN MORALES;
FRANCISCA MAGALLANES MUNIZ; ALFONSO MURCIA; CARLOS MURGUIA;
ABRAHAM SOSA; ABEL NAVARRETE; ALBERTO TAMAYO; LORENZO NAVARRETE;
SONIA TAMAYO; RAMON NAVARRETTE; ALISIA NIETO; JOSE J. TERRAZAS;
ISAAC OLGUIN; MARIA TERRAZAS; JAVIER OLGUIN; MARY OLGUIN; ALBARO
TORRES; MARIA D. OLIVAS; SANG THI TRAN; LAURO ORTEGA; THANH NGOC
TRAN; MARIA ROSA ORTEGA; MARICELA LARES ORTEGA; MARIA URRUTIA;
YOLANDA ORTEGA; ROLANDO VAILLANT; FRANCISCO A. ORTEZ; MARIA E.
VALADEZ; MANUEL OSORIO; YASMIN VALADEZ; JOSE RAUL PALACIOS; MARIA
ANGELINA PALACIOS; GILBERTO ARMANDO VALENCIA; MIGUEL PERALES;
ABRAHAM VALLEJO; BERTHA PEREZ; GABRIELA PEREZ; BERTHA VALLEJO;
JORGE L. PEREZ; MARIANA VANEGAS; MARTHA PEREZ; GERARDO C. VARELA;
JOSE ALEJANDRO PINEDA; ALEJANDRO PONCE; JOSE VASQUEZ; IRMA PONCE;
RAYMUNDO VASQUEZ; JUAN PONCE; SALVADOR VASQUEZ; JOSE VICTOR
PRIETO; ROSA MARIA VELASCO; EUGENE PROKOPINSKI; SAUL VELASCO; JUAN
ENRIQUE RAMIREZ; MARIA RAMIREZ; NICOLAS RAMIREZ-ACOSTA; JOSE
RENTERIA; ALMA RESENDIZ; ESTEBAN RESENDIZ; SANDRA RESENDIZ; JOSE
A. REYES; FRANCISCO J. VELAZQUEZ; IRMA G. VELAZQUEZ; MIRIAM DEL
CARMEN REYES; FRANCISCO MONTES RIOS; REYMUNDO VIANA; SALVADOR
ALVAREZ RIVERA; JESUS VILLEDA; JORGE ROBLES; SANTIAGO VILLEGAS,
JR.; LUZ M. ROCHA; SERGIO ZAMORA; GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ; JOSE R.
RODRIGUEZ; MARINA RODRIGUEZ; RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ; ROSA RODRIGUEZ;
SALVADOR ROMERO; RUBEN N. SALAS-ORTIZ; RICARDO SALDANA; SIXTO
SALDANA; CANDIDO MARINO SANCHEZ; ROSA MARIA SANCHEZ; RAMON
SANDOVAL; DANIEL SANTACRUZ; LUIS A. SANTACRUZ; JOAQUIN SANTOYO;
SOFIA E. SAUCEDA; ALEJANDRO SERRANO; ARMANDO SERRANO; FERNANDO
SERRANO; SERGIO SERRANO; BRENDA SERRATO; RAFAEL SOLIS; DAVID S.
SOLORZANO; AARON SOSA; MIGUEL AGUILERA; JUANA ALMANZA; MANUEL
ALMANZA; BENITO BARRAGAN; MARIA CERRITOS; ISMAEL CHAIREZ; SARA
CHAVARRIA; RAQUEL ESTRADA; ANA R. FLORES; JOSE HUERTA; SOPHIA
LAMDERO; ARNULFO LIRA; GABRIELA LIRA; JULIA LOPEZ; MANUEL DE JESUS
LOPEZ; MARIA A. MARTINEZ; MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ; MAREIAL
MORALES; ESTELA MURGUIA; ARMANDO NUNEZ; MICHELLE ORTEGA; OMAR
ORTEGA; LUIS ORTIZ; ROSALIA PEREZ; SOCORRO PEREZ; MARIA PEREZ-
SERRANO; MELANIA PINEDA; JOSE RAMIREZ; PETER RAMIREZ; STEVEN
RAMIREZ; DIANA RAMOS; BLANCA SALMERON; FELIX SOLOZANO; VASHON L.
TELFAIR; ARTURO VILLANUEVA; IRINEO ZEPIEN; CARLOS ACOSTA; ELIAS
MURILLO AVALOS; HUGO CASTRUITA; ALICIA MUNOZ HERNANDEZ; FRANCISCO
HUEREQUE; ALICIA MARTINEZ; JOSE G. MARTINEZ; PEDRO NEAVE; CATALINA
ALVARAEZ DE NICHOLS; EDUARD NICHOLS; MARIA DEL CARMEN PEREZ; MARIA
MARGARITA RENOVA; ALICIA SANCHEZ; MACARIO R. FARIAS; PRIMITIVO
GALVEZ; MARIA LOURDES GONZALES; GASPAR BENITO LUX; ENRIQUE MUNOZ;
GREGORIA RAMIREZ; SALVADOR SANCHEZ; AURA SANTACRUZ; JOSE I.
VALDEZ; HECTOR GARCIA VALLES; JESUS AGUILAR; MARIA A. ARREOLA;
FEDERICO G. BALTAZAR; ARMANDO CASTILLO; ABIGAIL CHAIREZ; MARIA
ESTRADA CHAIREZ; PATRICIA CORREA; ANGELICA MARIA NUNEZ ENRIQUEZ;
JOSE ANSELMO ENRIQUEZ; FRANCISCO ESQUIVEL; HUMBERTO ESQUIVEL;
TOMAS FELIX; MARIA FLORES; SAMUEL GOMEZ; ELIZABETH GONZALES;
KRISTAL GONZALEZ; RONALD W. HARDEN; TEODOLO HEREDIA; MARIO
HERRERA; RIBORGERTO JOHNSON; JOSE DE JESUS LIAMAS; LUIS E. LOZANO;
MARIO CHAIREZ MARES; EUSEBIO MARROQUIN; MARIA NOELI MONTOYA; NORMA
NAIERA MORALES; HUGO ORTEGA; ROSALBA ORTEGA; GONZALO PADILLA;
MERCEDES RAMIREZ; SALVADOR ROJO; RODOLFO RUBALCAVA; ROSINDA DE
JESUS UCLES; IGINIO CRUZ; FELIPE BRAVO; CHARLES VELAZQUEZ BAEZ;
REYNA LOPEZ; AURORA ALDANA; EDUARDO F. NOLASCO; PEDRO BALTAZAR;
EDDIE PRIETO; JACIMTO ALMAREZ; CARLOS MARTINEZ; MARIA MARTINEZ;
JOSEFINA GARCIA DE RODRIGUEZ; FELIMON RODRIGUEZ; JOSE MARTIN
HERNANDEZ; JOSH LUNDBLADE; NORA DURAN; SANDRA M. HERNANDEZ ALFARO;
FAUSTO VASQUEZ; JOSE HERNANDEZ; JORGE HINOJOSA; SEVERIONA
HINOJOSA; GILBERTO GUILLEN; CRUZ P. RAMIREZ; VIDALINA G. GALVAN;
ANTHONY GARCIA; ASCENCION GARCIA; ROBERTO AGUILAR; ROBERTO ALMEDA;
BLANCA BENITEZ; DAVID CHAVEZ; LUIS ALBERTO SANTACRUZ CASTANEDA;
MARTIN FACIO; FEDERICO CHAVEZ; AARON FINDLEY; ANTONIO HINOJOS;
MARIA LAGUNA GUERRA; JOEL GARCIA MAEDA; JOSE MORALES; ELIZABETH
ONTVEROS; JOEL ORTEGA; MANUELA ORTEGA; JUAN REYES; PEDRO REYES;
HELADIO RIVAS; CARMELITA ROSALES; FEDERICO ROSALES; ALFREDO
RUTIAGA; REYNA SALINAS; RAMON SOTO; JOSE ARRAS; MARIA DEL CARMEN;
ELAINE ROMERO; CARLOS MENDIAS; SABRINA GARCIA; ADAMS MURILLO;
AMALIA MORALES; MICHAEL LIBARRA; ARTURO CELIS; SONYA MARIBEL
HERNANDEZ; MARIA GERRERO; WILFRIDO INGLES; EDELMIRA VELAZZO;
SHARON SMITH; RAMON PEREZ; CINDY CISNEROS; DORA ALICIA MARTINEZ;
AMADO FIGUEROA; GUADALUPE QUESADA; PATRICIA ANGUIANO; JOSE LUIS
BARRON MENDEZ; MARIA PONCE; LEONARDO GODINEZ VILLALOBOS; J. R.
OTERO; ALVARO TORRES; FIDEL REYES; ISMAEL LOPEZ; JOSE VALADEZ;
RAFAEL RUIZ; LEOPOLDO SANCHEZ; SAUL RIVERA; MIGUEL ENRIQUEZ;
RICARDO MARTINEZ; GLORIA GARCIA; JOSE MINEROS; INES LOPEZ; PEDRO
S. HERNANDEZ; ALEJANDRO SOLORZANO; FRANCISCA QUINTANA; CRUZ
GUEVARA; CRISTINA TUCKER; PASCUAL BARCENAS; MIGUEL CORTEZ; MARIA
ELENA GOMEZ; ROQUE SOTO; ARMANDO AGUIRRE; JESUS ALVAREZ; GALINDA
BANUELOS; LETICIA CARDEMAS; MARIA DAMIAN; GUILLERMO DOMINQUEZ;
CARLA ESPINO; OSCAR GALVEZ; BERNABED GRAMAJO; FRANK GUEBANC;
FRANCISCO GUERRERO; ANTONIA HERNANDEZ; LETICIA HERNANDEZ; MARCO
ANTONIO HERNANDEZ; JOSE MARTINEZ; JOSE LUIS MEDINA; MARTHA MARIA
MENDIOLA; SILVIA NAVAR; DAVID RAMIREZ; MARIA I. REYES; FRANCISCO
RICO; JUAN RICO RODRIQUEZ; LAWRENCE STEADHAM; MARTIN TERRAZAS,
JR.; BERTHA F. TREJO; JUAN VIRQUEZ; ISAAC ADAME, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-3346.

George A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- (Todd M. McGuire --
mcguire@stuevesiegel.com -- with him on the briefs), Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Kansas City, Missouri, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Michael J. Mueller -- mmueller@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams
LLP, Washington, D.C. (Craig S. O'Dear -- csodear@bryancave.com --
and Terence J. Thum -- tjthum@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP,
Kansas City, Missouri, with him on the briefs), for Defendants-
Appellants.


UBM LLC: Sued Over Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grind Lap Services, Inc., individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. UBM LLC and John Does
1-12, Case No. 1:14-cv-06448 (N.D. Ill., August 21, 2014) is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

UBM LLC is a multimedia company with its principal place of
business in Manhasset, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Michael Smith, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH LLC
      134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      E-mail: jim@bockhatchllc.com


VIZIO INC: Recalls to Repair 39 & 42-Inch E-Series Flat Panel TVs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Vizio Inc., of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
VIZIO E-Series 39-inch and 42-inch televisions.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The stand assembly can fail and cause the television to tip over
unexpectedly, posing a risk of impact injury to the consumer.

VIZIO has received 51 reports of the recalled televisions tipping
over.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Vizio E-series 39- and 42-inch Full-Array LED
flat panel televisions.  The flat panel televisions are black with
"VIZIO" printed in the lower right corner of the television front
and the VIZIO logo in the center of the back.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/gdC34G

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Mexico and
sold at Best Buy, Meijer, Target, Walmart and other retail stores
nationwide , online at Amazon.com, Costco.com, Meijer.com,
Sams.com and other internet retailers from December 2013 through
June 2014 for between $370 and $450.

Consumers using the stand assembly should immediately detach the
stand, place the television in a safe location and contact VIZIO
for a replacement stand assembly.  Consumers with wall-mounted
televisions should request the replacement stand assembly in case
the stand is needed for future use.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Face Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. continues to face a securities
lawsuit, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 8-K filing
reporting its 2014 second quarter results with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

In August 2013, Vocera and other related parties were named as
defendants in two purported securities class actions, alleging
claims for allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results.

"As the cases progress, we may encounter more significant legal
costs for our defense. Our projections of net income/ (loss), and
non-GAAP earnings/loss per diluted share for the full year and
third quarter 2014 do not give effect to any such future legal
expenses because we do not regard them as reflective of the costs
we incur to operate our business," the Company said.


VORNADO AIR: Recalls Electric Space Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Vornado Air, LLC, of Andover, Kan., announced a voluntary recall
of 79,000 Vornado Air, LLC, of Andover, Kan.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The heater can overheat and cause the units to melt, catch fire
and ignite nearby items, posing a fire and burn hazard to
consumers.

Vornado has received 29 reports of units overheating and melting,
including seven reports of heaters catching fire, resulting in one
report of smoke inhalation and one report of property damage
caused by soot and smoke

The recall involves Vornado VH110 Whole Room Vortex electric space
heaters sold in two colors, black and white.  The heaters measure
about 10.5 inches high, 9 inches deep and 10.5 inches at the base
growing narrower at the top.  The on/off switch and the high/low
heat settings are located on top of the unit.  The Vornado logo
appears with a gray "V" on the front of the unit.  Recalled
heaters have the numbers 1 and 3 as the fourth and fifth digits of
the serial number.  The model and serial numbers appear on a
silver decal located on the bottom of the unit.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond, Home Depot, Menards, Orchard Supply, Target and
other retailers nationwide and online at Vornado.com and
Amazon.com from June 2013 through May 2014 for about $60.

Customers should immediately turn off and unplug the electric
space heater and contact Vornado for instructions on how to
receive a free replacement unit, including free shipping.


WILHELMINA MODELS: Court Narrows Claims in "Shanklin" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge O. Peter Sherwood of the Supreme Court, New York County
issued a decision and order on August 11, 2014, in the case
captioned ALEX SHANKLIN, LOUISA RASKE, MELISSA BAKER, ELENI
TZIMAS, MARCELLE ALMONTE, GRECIA PALOMARES, CARINA VRETMAN,
MICHELLE GRIFFIN TROTTER, individually and as class
representatives, Plaintiffs, v. WILHELMINA MODELS, INC.,
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL LTD., FORD MODELS, INC., ELITE MODEL
MANAGEMENT-NEW YORK LLC, CLICK MODEL MANAGEMENT, INC., MC2 d/b/a
KARIN MODELS OF NEW YORK, LLC., NEXT MANAGEMENT, LLC, MAJOR MODEL
MANAGEMENT INC., QUE MANAGEMENT INC., McCANN-ERICKSON USA, INC.,
McCANNERICKSON CORPORATION (INTERNATIONAL), L'OREAL USA, INC.,
P&G-CLAIROL, INC. (PROCTOR AND GAMBLE), SAATCHI AND SAATCHI NORTH
AMERICA, INC., OGILVY & MATHER WORLDWIDE INC, Defendants, DOCKET
NO. 653702/2013, MOTION SEQ. NOS. 001, 002, 004 THROUGH 014. 2014
NY Slip Op 32179(U).

This Decision and Order relates to ten motions to dismiss the
complaint, two motions for protective orders and one motion to
supplement the pleadings. At the request of the court, the
Defendants designated three representative motions to dismiss
(motion sequence numbers 001, 007, and 008) for oral argument.
Following oral argument, the court considered the papers submitted
in connection with each of the pending motions. The court having
stayed all discovery pending disposition of the pending motions,
the motions and portion of the motions that seek to stay discovery
are denied as moot.

Judge Sherwood held that the claims against the advertising agency
defendants (AADs) and client defendants (CDs) (motion sequence
numbers 002, 005, 006 and 008) will be dismissed.  The motions of
modeling agency defendants (MADs), Wilhermina, Next, Major and
Click (motion sequence numbers 001, 009, 010 and 012) to dismiss
are denied. The motions of MADs Ford and Que (motion sequence
numbers 011 and 013) are granted. Plaintiffs' motion to supplement
the pleadings as to Que (motion sequence number 014) is denied.

A copy of Judge Sherwood's decision and order is available at
http://is.gd/tFoplafrom Leagle.com.


WILLIAMSRDM INC: Recalls Microhood Fire Suppressors
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
WilliamsRDM, Inc., of Ft. Worth, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of 103,000 The StoveTop FireStop Microhood Fire
Suppressors.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The Microhood front canister can fall from the unit and fail to
suppress the fire.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recalled product is the StoveTop FireStop Microhood.  It is a
flame activated, dry chemical powder, fire suppression device that
mounts over a residential cooktop stove, underneath a microwave
oven.  The Microhood units are plastic/metal and come in black and
white.  They are about 14 inches long and 4 inches wide and 3
inches high.  The recalled model numbers are 677-1 (black) and
677-2 (white) with a "Replace Before" date of June 2014 thru
Aug. 2019.  This date is located on the bottom of each unit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/KhTpM6

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at HD
Supply,Wilmar Industries, Louisville Fire & Safety and other
contractor supply companies from June 2009 to Aug. 2014 for about
$80.

Contact WilliamsRDM for a free inspection kit which includes
instructions and a tool for performing an on-site inspection and
repair of the units.  Alternately, units can be shipped back to
WilliamsRDM for a free inspection/repair.  Firm is contacting
consumers directly.


WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Marketed Homeopathic Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Herazo, Yaneris Almonte, Deniele Barbosa Charun, and Kenan
Rasabi, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a foreign for profit
corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61909 (S.D. Fla., August 21, 2014),
arises from the Defendants false and misleading representations of
homeopathic products as relieving adults' and children's medical
symptoms.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. markets, advertises, distributes, and
sells several homeopathic products under the 365 Be Well brand
names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Phillip O'Connell, Esq.
      THOMAS P. O'CONNELL, PA
      750 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 204
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 527-1092
      Facsimile: 527-1766
      E-mail: trialtom2@aol.com


WILLIAMS COS: High Court to Hear Lawsuit Over Gas Price Indices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases filed by direct
and indirect purchasers of natural gas against The Williams
Companies, Inc. alleging it manipulated published gas price
indices, according to the company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the
manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking
unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to
the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery
and pre-trial issues.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for
summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot. The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded
the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue
their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that were not
subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. On July 1,
2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases.


WILLIAMS COS: Lawsuit v. WPZ Over Geismar Incident Continues
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues its
investigations of the Geismar Incident, due to which Williams
Partners LP is facing various lawsuits, according to the company's
July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "As a result of the previously discussed Geismar
Incident, there were two fatalities, and numerous individuals
(including employees and contractors) reported injuries, which
varied from minor to serious. WPZ is cooperating with the Chemical
Safety Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regarding their investigations of the Geismar Incident. On October
21, 2013, the EPA issued an Inspection Report pursuant to the
Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program following its inspection
of the facility on June 24 through 28, 2013. The report notes the
EPA's preliminary determinations about the facility's
documentation regarding process safety, process hazard analysis,
as well as operating procedures, employee training, and other
matters. On June 16, 2014, we received a request for information
related to the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of
the Clean Air Act. We and the EPA continue to discuss preliminary
determinations, and the EPA could issue penalties pertaining to
final determinations. On December 11, 2013, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued citations in
connection with its investigation of the June 13, 2013 incident,
which included a Notice of Penalty for $99,000. We have settled
the citations in principle with OSHA, but have not yet finalized a
settlement agreement. On June 25, 2013, OSHA commenced a second
inspection pursuant to its Refinery and Chemical National Emphasis
Program (NEP). OSHA did not issue a citation to WPZ in connection
with this NEP inspection and there is a six month statute of
limitations for violation of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 or regulations promulgated under such act. On June 28,
2013, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
issued a Consolidated Compliance Order & Notice of Potential
Penalty to Williams Olefins, L.L.C. that consolidates claims of
unpermitted emissions and other deviations under the Clean Air Act
that the parties had been negotiating since 2010 and alleged
unpermitted emissions arising from the Geismar Incident.
Negotiations with the LDEQ are ongoing. Any potential fines and
penalties from these agencies would not be covered by our
insurance policy. Additionally, multiple lawsuits, including class
actions for alleged offsite impacts, property damage, customer
claims, and personal injury, have been filed against various of
our subsidiaries.

"Due to the ongoing investigation into the cause of the incident,
and the limited information available associated with the filed
lawsuits, which generally do not specify any amounts for claimed
damages, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss
related to these contingencies at this time."


WILLIAMS COS: Dismissal of FHRA Claims in Suit v. WAPI Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court reaffirmed its dismissal of all claims by Flint Hills
Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA) against The Williams Companies, Inc.
and entered judgment for WPX, according to the company's July 31,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "In January 2010, James West filed a class
action lawsuit in state court in Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of
individual property owners whose water contained sulfolane
contamination allegedly emanating from the Flint Hills Oil
Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named our subsidiary,
Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources
Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as
defendants. We owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when we
sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA have made claims under the pollution
liability insurance policy issued in connection with the sale of
the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We and FHRA also filed claims
against each other seeking, among other things, contractual
indemnification alleging that the other party caused the sulfolane
contamination.

"In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's
claims. On November 5, 2013, the court ruled that the applicable
statute of limitations bars all FHRA's claims against us and
dismissed those claims with prejudice. FHRA asked the court to
reconsider and clarify its ruling. On July 8, 2014, the court
reaffirmed its dismissal of all FHRA's claims and entered judgment
for us. We anticipate that FHRA will appeal the court's decision."


WORLD WRESTLING: Alfred Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. on Aug. 25 disclosed
that it has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
securities between October 31, 2013 and May 16, 2014, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, certain of
WWE's officers issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's ability to command a premium fee in
upcoming negotiations to renew its television license agreement.

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of investors for
the following companies: Cobalt International Energy, Inc.,
DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., EVOQ Properties, Inc., Fabrinet,
General Motors Company, Genworth Financial, Inc., InterMune, Inc.,
Key Energy Services, Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., Ocwen
Financial Corp., Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation, Santander
Consumer USA Holdings Inc., Skilled Healthcare Group, and Yelp,
Inc.

If you are an investor in any of the above companies and wish
learn more about any of the investigations or have any questions,
please contact Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164,
toll free.  You may also contact him by email at yateslaw@aol.com
or through the law office web site at
http://yatesclassactionlaw.com/contact_us.php


XPO LOGISTICS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Pacer Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in In re Pacer International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
No. 14-39-IV, of which XPO Logistics, Inc. is a defendant, reached
an agreement in principle to settle claims, according to the
company's July 31, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Between January 8 and January 16, 2014, five substantially
identical putative class actions were filed in the Tennessee
Chancery Court against the Company, Pacer and Pacer's directors
challenging the Company's acquisition of Pacer. By stipulation and
order dated February 18, 2014, the Chancery Court for Davidson
County consolidated these cases under the caption In re Pacer
International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-39-IV. The
operative complaint in the consolidated case alleges, among other
things, that the directors of Pacer breached their fiduciary
duties to Pacer's shareholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Pacer by XPO by agreeing to the proposed merger at
an allegedly unfair price pursuant to a purportedly flawed and
conflicted sales process, by including certain allegedly
preclusive deal-protection measures, and by misrepresenting and/or
omitting certain allegedly material information in the proxy
statement relating to the transaction. The parties have reached an
agreement in principle to settle all of these claims, which the
Company continues to believe are without merit.


YELP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 25 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Yelp, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 14-cv-03832, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Yelp securities between October 29, 2013 and April 3,
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 Yelp securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 6, 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.

Yelp operates as an online local guide that connects people
primarily with boutiques, mechanics, restaurants, and dentists.
The company's local advertising services include a free online
business account that enables businesses to view business trends,
use the revenue estimator tool, message customers, update
information, and offer Yelp deals and gift certificates.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's true business and financial condition, including but not
limited to the true nature of the so-called "firsthand"
experiences and reviews appearing on the Company's website, the
robustness of its processes and algorithms purportedly designed to
screen unreliable reviews, and the Company's forecasted financial
growth prospects and the extent to which they were reliant upon
undisclosed business practices, including but not limited to
requiring business customers to pay to suppress negative reviews.
The misrepresentations made by Defendants concerning the Company's
current financial and business condition, including its forecasted
financial and business condition alleged herein, were each
materially false and misleading when made and caused the Company's
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices of over $98.00 per
share on March 4, 2014.

According to the complaint, as the true facts concerning the
Company's business practices began to be revealed to the market
through a series of articles and disclosures starting on March 31,
2014, the Company's stock price declined, falling from a close of
$80.18 per share on April 1, 2014 to a close of $65.76 per share
on April 4, 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.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: Port Worker Sues Buck Kreihs et al.
---------------------------------------------------
Andrew Stevens, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a
former employee working at the New Orleans and Baton Rouge ports
has filed suit against numerous companies for their alleged
negligence in exposing the employee to asbestos which resulted in
the contraction of mesothelioma.

Cleveland Joseph Jeansonne filed suit against Buck Kreihs Company
Inc.; CBS Corp.; Dixie Machine, Welding & Metal Works Inc.; Eagle
Inc.; General Electric Company; Kelly Moore Paint Company; Kaiser
Gypsum Company Inc.; O-I Inc.; Sank Inc.; Taylor-Seidenbach Inc.;
The McCarty Corp.; Union Carbide Corp.; Hopeman Brothers; National
Oilwell Varco; Avondale Industries Inc.; Cooper T. Smith
Stevedoring Company Inc.; Industrial Development Corporation of
South Africa LTD.; P & O Ports Gulfport Inc.; Rogers Terminal and
Shipping Corp.; SSA Gulf Inc.; South African Marine Corp. LTD;
Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.; Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's, London and One Beacon Insurance Co. in the Orleans Parish
Civil District Court on June 18.

The plaintiff claims to have been exposed to asbestos while
working as a deck hand, fireman and boiler tender for multiple
companies along the port of New Orleans and Baton Rouge from 1956
through 1979.  The plaintiff also claims he was exposed to
asbestos while working for one of the defendants from 1953 to 1957
at various locations in New Orleans. The plaintiff claims this
exposure to the asbestos and asbestos-containing products was the
direct cause of his contraction of a form of mesothelioma. The
plaintiff alleges he had no knowledge of the inherent dangers of
working with the asbestos-products, and that the defendants
negligently placed him in danger by not providing a work area with
proper safety precautions. The plaintiff asserts that the
defendants negligence led to his continued exposure and eventual
contraction of mesothelioma.

The defendants are accused of failing to properly ventilate the
area the plaintiff was required to work in, failing to warn or
provide proper safety appliance for plaintiff's use, failing to
institute safety procedures for the adequate protection of the
plaintiff, failing to warn the plaintiff of the dangers posed by
the polluted atmosphere the plaintiff was required to work in,
failing to abide by state and federal regulations regarding
exposure to asbestos, the manufacture and use of products that are
unreasonably dangerous, failing to truthfully report the results
of product testing, over-warranting the safety of products,
failing to educate the plaintiff of the hazards of asbestos and
failing to implement the use of asbestos-free materials.

The plaintiff is seeking an unknown amount in damages for physical
pain and suffering, medical expenses, funeral expenses, lost
earnings, lost earning capacity, loss of consortium, loss of
quality of life and legal costs.

Jeansonne is represented by Mickey P. Landry from the firm of
Landry & Swarr LLC in New Orleans.

The case has been assigned to Division L Judge Kern A. Reese,
Chief Judge.

Case no. 2014-06010.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Couple Name 109 Defendants in Fibro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported that a
couple is suing 109 companies they say are responsible for a
mesothelioma diagnosis.

Thomas Ray Allen was diagnosed with mesothelioma on April 30,
according to a complaint filed in Marshall Circuit Court.

Allen and his wife, Phyllis Allen, claim the 109 defendants
exposed Thomas Allen to asbestos during his employment in New
Martinsville.

The defendants caused Thomas Allen to be exposed to asbestos
and/or other harmful minerals manufactured, supplied, sold,
distributed, installed, used, specified, removed and/or required
by the defendants, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to warn them of the
dangers of the asbestos-containing products and failed to take
reasonable precautions to warn them of the dangers.

The defendants also failed to exercise reasonable care to warn
them of the dangers and failed to inform them of what would be
safe and sufficient apparel for a person who was exposed to or
used the product or products, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants are strictly liable to the
them for the exposure.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages with
pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being represented by
Leslie Ann James of Hartly & O'Brien PLLC.

The 109 defendants include Bayer Corporation; Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation; Ajax Management Corporation; Alliance Machine
Company; Allied Glove Corporation; American Gage & Machine
Company; American Optical Corporation; Ametek Inc.; Armstrong
International Inc.; and Armstrong Pumps Inc.

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge David W. Hummel Jr.

Marshall Circuit Court case number: 14-C-84


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal to Plant Insulation Plan Order Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, Calif, rejected
the insurers' appeal to the confirmation of Plant Insulation
Company's revised reorganization plan.

The Ninth Circuit had rejected Plant's prior reorganization plan,
holding the Original plan failed to comply with 11 U.S.C. Sec.
524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III), a Bankruptcy Code provision that seeks to
ensure a reorganized debtor's future operations are controlled by
an asbestos trust formed under Sec. 524(g).

The Plan Proponents -- consisting of Plant, the Official Committee
of Unsecured Creditors, and the Futures Representative -- then
formulated and lodged an amended plan, which was subsequently
confirmed by the bankruptcy court.  A contingent of Plant's
insurers lodged the appeal of the confirmation order, arguing the
Revised Plan still violates Sec. 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III).

According to Judge Seeborg, while Sec. 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III) "is
about control over the reorganized debtor's future operations,"
the statute does not require that the trust retain an unfettered
right to sell its shares in the organized debtor. Nor does the
statute preclude an arrangement whereby the trust is required to
invest in the reorganized debtor at confirmation, even at an over-
market price.  Because the insurers' claims of legal and factual
error are without merit, the appeal is denied, Judge Seeborg said.

The Plan provides two avenues for compensating existing and future
asbestos injury claimants: (1) from a trust established under Sec.
524(g), and (2) by preserving claimants' right to file tort
actions against Plant and insurers that refuse to settle such
claims by making cash contributions to the Trust.

The Sec. 524(g) injunction operates to create strong incentives
for Plant's remaining insurers to settle their potential
liabilities by making cash contributions to the Trust, or else
continue to defend asbestos injury claims without any possibility
of receiving reimbursement from Plant if its underlying liability
policies are ultimately determined to be exhausted. In exchange
for the settlement payments, the injunction completely releases
so-called Settling Insurers from all claims brought by all
parties, including tort claims asserted by asbestos injury
claimants, and claims for equitable contribution that might
otherwise be brought by Non-Settling Insurers.

The Plan further provides partial payment for general unsecured
creditors, including insurers' claims for reimbursement, by
setting aside 10% of all available funds (e.g., insurance
settlement proceeds) to the Unsecured Claims Reserve. All other
available cash proceeds are transferred to the Trust for
reimbursement to asbestos injury claimants. Distributions to those
claimants will be made according to established "Trust
Distribution Procedures," which enable the Trust's administrators
to determine the amount of compensable damages for each claimant
as well as the proportion of the Trust's funds that may be paid
out to each claimant without depleting payments to future
claimants.

Alternatively, under the Plan, asbestos injury claimants retain
their right to pursue Plant and Non-Settling Insurers by filing a
tort action, subject to several conditions. First, a determination
by the Trust as to the validity or sum of compensable claims
cannot provide a basis for liability in the courts. Second, if a
claimant obtains a judgment against Plant, he or she may file suit
(or Direct Action) against the Non-Settling Insurers to determine
whether the claim is covered by insurance.

Claimants are enjoined from enforcing any such judgment against
the Settling Insurers, (reorganized) Bayside, or the officers,
directors, or shareholders of either Plant or Bayside. In
addition, any judgment against a Non-Settling Insurer obtained by
an asbestos injury claimant must be reduced by the amount
previously recovered by the claimant from the Trust. By the same
token, a claimant who is fully compensated in such a Direct Action
against a Non-Settling Insurer may not seek to recover from the
Fund.

Finally, a claimant may not proceed with a Direct Action unless he
or she agrees in writing that the Non-Settling Insurer may offset
from any recovery otherwise available in a final judgment, the
amount of equitable contributions (including for defense costs)
that would be available to the Non-Settling Insurer from other
Settling Insurers, collection of which is enjoined under the Plan.
The deductions to Direct Action judgments are only applicable if
the Action goes to trial and leads to a final judgment. In other
words, those deductions are not available to the Non-Settling
Insurers in asbestos-related cases that are dismissed without any
payment to the claimant or settled before judgment.

The Plan also requires the merger of Plant and Bayside, under the
latter's name. As part of that transaction, the Trust will invest
$2 million in the reorganized Bayside and receive 40% of the
common stock of the company in exchange, as well as a warrant to
purchase an additional 11% of shares (thus totaling 51% of voting
shares). Reorganized Bayside is to assume Plant's responsibilities
to its insurers under the latter's liability policies, post-
merger.

The case is ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellants, v.
PLANT INSULATION CO., et al., Appellees, No. C 14-01200 RS (N.D.
Cal.).  A copy of Judge Seeborg's August 18, 2014 Order is
available at http://is.gd/WKlgXqfrom Leagle.com

OneBeacon Insurance Company is represented by Meeghan Leahy
Buckley, Dentons US LLP, Philip Aloysius O'Connell, Jr., Dentons
US LLP, Christopher Day Soper, Dentons US LLP & Robert Millner,
Dentons US LLP.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Appellant, represented by
Clinton Earl Cameron, Troutman Sanders LLP, Chad A. Westfall,
Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP, Lawrence Allen Tabb, Musick Peeler &
Garrett LLP & Seth Martin Erickson.

Safety National Casualty Corporation, Appellant, represented by
Paul Joseph Killion, Duane Morris LLP & Philip Richard Matthews,
Duane Morris LLP.

American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jeff R.
Carlisle, Lynberg & Watkins, Michael S Davis, Zeichner Ellman
Krause LLP & Randall James Peters, Lynberg & Watkins.

Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jeff R.
Carlisle, Lynberg & Watkins, Michael S Davis, Zeichner Ellman
Krause LLP & Randall James Peters, Lynberg & Watkins.

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Defendant,
represented by Jeff R. Carlisle, Lynberg & Watkins, Michael S
Davis, Zeichner Ellman Krause LLP & Randall James Peters, Lynberg
& Watkins.

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Defendant,
represented by Andrew T. Frankel, Kathrine A. McLendon & Terry
Sanders, Simpson Thacher and Bartlett.

Transport Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ray L.
Wong, Duane Morris LLP.

Plant Insulation Company, Appellee, represented by Peter J.
Benvenutti, Keller & Benvenutti LLP, Lori Sinanyan, Jones Day &
Ryan T. Routh, Jones Day.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Plant Insulation
Company, Appellee, represented by Michael H. Ahrens, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Michael Magayne Lauter, Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton.

Charles B Renfrew, Appellee, represented by Gary Scott Fergus,
Fergus, A Law Office.

Bayside Insulation & Construction, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by George H. Kalikman, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
LLP.

San Francisco, California-based Plant Insulation Company
manufactured insulation products and services.  It is formerly
involved in the sale, installation, repair, and distribution of
products containing asbestos.  The Company filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. N.D. Calif. Case No. 09-31347) on May 20, 2009.
Michaeline H. Correa, Esq., Peter J. Benvenutti, Esq., and Tobias
S. Keller, Esq., at Jones Day, represent the Debtor in its
restructuring effort.  The Debtor estimated assets and debts
ranging from $500 million to $1 billion.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $474-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $474 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 is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

The Company expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

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

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

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

Based on the Company's review of 2014 activity, it was determined
that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June 30, 2014.
The Company's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $474 million at June 30, 2014. Approximately 22 percent
of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 78 percent related to future claims.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $88MM Insurance Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's total insurance receivables related to
its asbestos-related liability was $88 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.

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

In September 2003, the Company filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance
policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may
raise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reached
settlements with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance
Litigation and continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining
carrier. The Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related
to its asbestos liability was $23 million at June 30, 2014 and $25
million at December 31, 2013.

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

In its unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements, the Company
reported that the total receivables related to its asbestos-
related liability at June 30, 2014, was $88 million.

The Company expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact
for defense and resolution costs was $29 million for the second
quarter of 2014 ($29 million in the second quarter of 2013), $54
million for the first six months of 2014 ($51 million for the
first six months of 2013) and reflected in "Cost of sales" in the
consolidated statements of income.

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

The amounts recorded by the Company for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable were based upon
current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among
insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for the Corporation to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of the uncertainties, the Company's management cannot
estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem. The
Company's management believes that it is reasonably possible that
the cost of disposing of the Company's asbestos-related claims,
including future defense costs, could have a material impact on
the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a
particular period and on the consolidated financial position of
the Company.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty
the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims
referred to in this filing, management believes that adequate
provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to
pending claims and proceedings, and that, except for the asbestos-
related matters, the ultimate outcome of all known and future
claims, after provisions for insurance, will not have a material
adverse impact on the results of operations, cash flows and
financial position of the Company. Should any losses be sustained
in connection with any of such legal proceedings and claims in
excess of provisions provided and available insurance, they will
be charged to income when determinable.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had 21,103 Fibro Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation disclosed that it is involved with
21,103 individuals asbestos claimants, 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 is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

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

The Company disclosed that as of June 30, 2014, it is involved
with 21,103 individuals asbestos claimants.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 49,770 Fibro Claims as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had 49,770 asbestos-related claims for the three-months
ended June 30, 2014, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated
July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2014.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in
numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos. For the Three-Months Ended
June 30, 2014, there were 49,770 asbestos-related claims against
the Company.

Of the 49,770 pending claims as of June 30, 2014, approximately
19,000 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,600 claims
were pending in Texas, approximately 5,100 claims were pending in
Mississippi, and approximately 400 claims were pending in Ohio,
all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $900,000 for Paulus Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has paid $900,000 arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters in the lawsuit filed by William Paulus in
California, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28,
2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2014.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. To date, the Company
has paid three judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts in
asbestos matters. The first payment, in the amount of $2.54
million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was
made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case
in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The third payment,
in the amount of $0.9 million, was made in June 2014,
approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the William
Paulus matter in California, after the Company had exhausted all
post-trial and appellate remedies.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Nelson" Suit v. Crane Co. Set for Reargument
--------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related lawsuit filed by James Nelson against Crane
Co. is scheduled for en banc reargument before the Pennsylvania
Superior Court, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28,
2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2014.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23,
2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of
$0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount
of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company
resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the
settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson
verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new
trial. Plaintiffs have requested a rehearing in the Superior
Court, which the defendants, including the Company, have opposed.
By order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the
panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument, which is scheduled
to be heard in third quarter of 2014.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $4.9MM "Dummitt" Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. disclosed that it will appeal to the New York Court of
Appeals a lower court's $4.9 million judgment on the Ronald
Dummitt claim, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28,
2014, filed with  the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 29, 2014.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on
October 18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012,
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a
judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking
into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New
York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a
3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company will appeal
to the New York Court of Appeals.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, 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 and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. To date, the
majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs, except for
costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and
a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by
insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company
cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be
available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs,
or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them.
Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United
States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance have been settled for various
insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in
a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

IDEX Corporation (IDEX), is an applied solutions business that
sells an array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems
and components and engineered products to customers in a variety
of markets worldwide. IDEX operates in three business segments:
Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies and
Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. Reporting units in the Fluid &
Metering Technologies segment consist of Banjo; Energy and Fuels
(Energy); Chemical, Food & Process (CFP) and Water & Waste Water
(Water). Reporting units in the Health & Science Technologies
segment consist of IDEX Health & Science (IH&S); IDEX Optics and
Photonics (IOP); Precision Polymer Engineering (PPE); Gast;
Micropump and Materials Process Technologies (MPT). Reporting
units in the Fire & Safety/Diversified Products segment consist of
Fire Suppression; Rescue Tools and Band-It. In April 2014, IDEX
Corp announced the acquisition of Aegis Flow Technologies (Aegis).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself
against lawsuits alleging that the Company manufactured,
distributed or utilized drilling mud containing 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 one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in state courts alleging that defendants
manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing
asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to have been
utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing
drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the
drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are
not liable for the damages asserted and we expect to receive
complete defense and indemnity with respect to many of the
lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company pursuant to
the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with them. We also
believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the
remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset
purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we filed a
declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against NuStar
Energy LP, or NuStar, the successor to Diamond M Corporation,
seeking a judicial determination that we did not assume liability
for these claims. We obtained summary judgment on our claims in
the declaratory judgment action, but NuStar appealed the trial
court's decision, and the appellate court has remanded the case to
trial. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any,
to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that ultimate
liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.

"Various other claims have been filed against us in the ordinary
course of business. In the opinion of our management, no pending
or known threatened claims, actions or proceedings against us are
expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

"We intend to defend these matters vigorously; however, we cannot
predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any litigation
matters or any other pending litigation or claims. There can be no
assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor. The Company has a fleet of 44 offshore
drilling rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, seven jack-ups
and five dynamically positioned drillships, four of which are
under construction. The Company's jackups include Ocean King,
Ocean Nugget, Ocean Scepter, Ocean Spartan, Ocean Spur, Ocean
Summit and Ocean Titan. The Company's Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Alliance, Ocean America, Ocean Apex, Ocean Onyx,
Ocean Valiant, and Ocean Star. Ultra-Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Valor, Ocean Courage, Ocean Monarch, Ocean Baroness,
and Ocean Confidence. Ultra-Deepwater Drillships include Ocean
BlackLion, Ocean BlackRhino, Ocean BlackHornet, and Ocean Clipper.
Mid-Water Semisubmersibles includes Ocean Winner, Ocean Quest,
Ocean Concord, Ocean Guardian, Ocean Whittington, and Ocean
Yorktown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Corp. Had 47 Unresolved Fibro Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 47 unresolved asbestos exposure cases against Huntsman
Corporation, 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 have been named as a "premises defendant"
in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by
nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. These
complaints generally do not provide specific information about the
amount of damages being sought, the time period in which the
alleged injuries occurred or the alleged exposures giving rise to
the asserted liability. This information, which would be central
to any estimate of probable loss, generally must be obtained
through legal discovery.

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

"For the Six-Months Ended June 30, 2014, there were 1,072 cases
for which service has been received that we have tendered to the
indemnifying party, all of which have been accepted by the
indemnifying party.

"We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As
of June 30, 2014, we had an accrued liability of approximately $10
million relating to these cases and a corresponding receivable of
approximately $10 million relating to our indemnity protection
with respect to these cases. We cannot assure you that our
liability will not exceed our accruals or that our liability
associated with these cases would not be material to our financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity; accordingly, we are
not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of our
accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made against
us in the future, and such claims could be material. However,
because we are not able to estimate the amount or range of losses
associated with such claims, we have made no accruals with respect
to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2014.

"Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not
subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However,
we may be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of
these cases. The following table presents for the periods
indicated certain information about these cases.

"Cases include all cases for which service has been received by
us. Certain prior cases that were filed in error against us have
been dismissed. For the Six-Months Ended June 30, 2014, there were
47 unresolved cases.

"We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of $414,000 and nil for the six
months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. As of June 30,
2014, we had an accrual of $141,000 relating to these cases. We
cannot assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals
or that our liability associated with these cases would not be
material to our financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity; accordingly, we are not able to estimate the amount or
range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of June 30, 2014."

Huntsman Corporation is a manufacturer of differentiated organic
chemical products and of inorganic chemical products. The Company
operates its businesses through Huntsman International LLC
(Huntsman International). The Company's products consists a range
of chemicals and formulations, which it markets globally to a
range of consumer and industrial customers. The Company is a
global producer in product lines, including methyl diphenyl
diisocyanate (MDI), amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer
formulations, textile chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and
titanium dioxide. The Company operates in five segments:
Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Advanced Materials, Textile
Effects and Pigments. In August 2013, it announced that it has
completed the acquisition of the business of Oxid L.P. In June
2014, Wilmar International Limited's subsidiary, Wilmar Europe
Holdings B.V. purchased the Company's European commodity
surfactants business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 730 Active Fibro Cases
------------------------------------------------------
There were 730 active asbestos-related cases against United States
Steel Corporation, 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, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 730
active cases involving approximately 3,370 plaintiffs. As of
December 31, 2013, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately
720 active cases involving approximately 3,320 plaintiffs. For the
period ended June 30, 2014, settlements and dismissals resulted in
the disposition of approximately 90 claims and U. S. Steel paid
approximately $3 million in settlements. New filings added
approximately 140 claims.

About 2,580, or approximately 76 percent, of these claims are
currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with
massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience
in such cases, it believes the actual number of plaintiffs who
ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a
small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. Most of the
claims filed in recent years involve individual or small groups of
claimants.

Historically, these claims against U. S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products formerly manufactured by U. S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and general
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U. S. Steel.
The ultimate outcome of any claim depends upon a myriad of legal
and factual issues, including whether the plaintiff can prove
actual disease, if any; actual exposure, if any, to U. S. Steel
products; the duration of exposure to asbestos, if any, on U. S.
Steel's premises and the plaintiff's exposure to other sources of
asbestos. In general, the only insurance available to U. S. Steel
with respect to asbestos claims is excess casualty insurance,
which has multi-million dollar self-insured retentions. To date,
U. S. Steel has received payments for a certain minority of claims
that qualify for insurance coverage.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U. S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
260 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases where the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U. S. Steel or our products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U. S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs
have been unable to demonstrate they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to
asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related to
U. S. Steel or our products or premises.

In every asbestos case in which U. S. Steel is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against numerous named defendants and
generally do not contain allegations regarding specific monetary
damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages
is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named
defendants and in no case is there any allegation of monetary
damages against U. S. Steel. Historically, approximately 89
percent of the cases against U. S. Steel did not specify any
damage amount or stated that the damages sought exceeded the
amount required to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed. Jurisdictional amounts generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000. U. S. Steel does not consider the amount of
damages alleged, if any, in a complaint to be relevant in
assessing our potential exposure to asbestos liabilities.

U. S. Steel aggressively pursues grounds for the dismissal of U.
S. Steel from pending cases and litigates cases to verdict where
we believe litigation is appropriate. U. S. Steel also makes
efforts to settle appropriate cases, especially mesothelioma
cases, for reasonable, and frequently nominal, amounts.

The amount U. S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U. S. Steel's consolidated financial position. U.
S. Steel does not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it
is not possible to determine whether any loss is probable with
respect to such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of
any possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against
us allege so-called "premises" liability-based exposure on U. S.
Steel's current or former premises. These claims may be made by an
indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers, railroad
workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees, government
inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers. In most
cases, the claimant was exposed to asbestos in non-U. S. Steel
settings; the relative periods of exposure between U. S. Steel and
non-U. S. Steel settings vary with each claimant, and the strength
or weakness of the causal link between U. S. Steel exposure and
any injury vary widely as do the nature and severity of the injury
claimed.

The Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, management believes that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition, although the
resolution of such matters could significantly impact the
consolidated results of operations for a particular period. Among
the factors considered in reaching this conclusion are: (1) it has
been many years since U. S. Steel employed maritime workers or
manufactured or sold asbestos containing products; (2) most
asbestos containing material was removed or remediated at U. S.
Steel facilities many years ago and (3) U. S. Steel's history of
trial outcomes, settlements and dismissals.

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) is an integrated
steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with production
ope. S. Steel is also engaged in other business activities
consisting primarily of transportation services (railroad and
barge operations) and real estate operations. rations in North
America and Europe. The Company operates in three segments: Flat-
rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE) and
Tubular Products (Tubular). U. S. Steel owns, develops and manages
various real estate assets, which include approximately 200,000
acres of surface rights primarily in Alabama, Illinois, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. In addition, U. S. Steel
participates in joint ventures that are developing real estate
projects in Alabama, Maryland and Illinois. U. S. Steel also owns
approximately 4,000 acres of land in Ontario, Canada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 53,000 Exposure Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., had 53,000 asbestos exposure 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.
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a
substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States
by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a
U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this
U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota
and Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at
the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's
assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the
legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company
cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and
there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the
legislation on Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly
more for asbestos-related claims than the acquired company's
adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the legislation was
amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision (Ieropoli
v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002) which held that the
statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution due to retroactive
application. The Company cautions that the limitations of the
statute, as amended, are subject to litigation and may not be
upheld.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company.

During the six months ended June 30, 2014, the Company paid $11
million to settle outstanding claims and had 53,000 claims.

In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an
analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes by year of exposure
and state filed. As of December 31, 2013, the Company's total
outstanding claims were 53,000.

The outstanding claims in each period exclude approximately 19,000
inactive claims. Due to the passage of time, the Company considers
it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases will pursue further
action against the Company. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states, where the Company's liability is
limited by statute.

With respect to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlements in states where the Company's
liability is limited by statute except for certain pending claims
in Texas as described earlier.

With respect to post-1964 claims, regardless of the existence of
asbestos legislation, the Company does not include in its accrual
any amounts for settlement of these claims because of increased
difficulty of establishing identification of relevant insulation
products as the cause of injury. Given our settlement experience
with post-1964 claims, we do not believe that an adverse ruling in
the Texas or Pennsylvania asbestos litigation cases, or in any
other state that has enacted asbestos legislation, would have a
material impact on the Company with respect to such claims.

As of December 31, the percentage of total outstanding claims
related to claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily
mesothelioma and other malignancies) was 21%; 39% indicated as
pre-1964 claims in states without asbestos legislation.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of June 30, 2014.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company's accrual for pending and future
asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $244 million,
including $203 million for unasserted claims. The Company's
accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the
year 2023. The Company's accrual excludes potential costs for
claims beyond 2023 because the Company believes that the key
assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. The Company is unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to
uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 87% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2013), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).

Crown Holdings, Inc., is engaged in designing, manufacturing and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its business is
organized within three divisions: Americas, Europe and Asia
Pacific. Its segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. Its segments within the European
Division are European Beverage and European Food. Americas
Beverage includes beverage can operations in the United States,
Brazil, Canada, Colombia and Mexico. North America Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in the United States
and Canada. European Beverage includes beverage can operations in
Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. European Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in Europe and Africa.
Its Asia Pacific Division consists of beverage and non-beverage
can operations, primarily food cans and specialty packaging.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lorillard Tobacco Had 67 Filter Cases
------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard Inc. and its subsidiary had 67 cases alleging exposure
to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter material
used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by their predecessor,
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.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard,
Inc. by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of July 25, 2014, Lorillard
Tobacco was a defendant in 65 Filter Cases. Lorillard, Inc. was a
defendant in two Filter Cases, including one that also names
Lorillard Tobacco. Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has
paid, or has reached agreement to pay, a total of approximately
$31.7 million in settlements to finally resolve 130 claims. Since
January 1, 2012, verdicts have been returned in the following
three Filter Cases: McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company and
Hollingsworth & Vose Company, tried in the Circuit Court, Division
Four, of Jefferson County, Kentucky; Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding
Wheels, et al., tried in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles; and DeLisle v. A.W. Chesterton Company,
et al., tried in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in
and for Broward County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of a 1952
agreement between P. Lorillard Company and H&V Specialties Co.,
Inc. (the manufacturer of the filter material), Lorillard Tobacco
is required to indemnify Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees,
expenses, judgments and resolutions in cases and claims alleging
injury from finished products sold by P. Lorillard Company that
contained the filter material. The jury in the McGuire case
returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose,
and the Court entered final judgment in May 2012. On February 14,
2014, the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment in
favor of Lorillard Tobacco and Hollingsworth & Vose and on April
3, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for
rehearing. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff moved for discretionary
review in the Kentucky Supreme Court. Lorillard Tobacco filed its
responsive brief on May 30, 2014. On October 4, 2012, the jury in
the Couscouris case returned a verdict for Lorillard Tobacco and
Hollingsworth & Vose, and the court entered final judgment on
November 1, 2012. On June 17, 2013, the California Court of Appeal
for the Second Appellate District entered an order dismissing the
appeal of the final judgment pursuant to plaintiffs' request, but
plaintiffs' appeal of the cost judgment remained pending. However,
plaintiffs abandoned their appeal on June 2, 2014, and on June 4,
2014, the appeal was dismissed. On September 13, 2013, the jury in
the DeLisle case found in favor of the plaintiffs as to their
claims for negligence and strict liability, and awarded $8
million. Lorillard Tobacco Company is responsible for 44%, or
$3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard
Tobacco Company filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013.
Lorillard Tobacco's initial brief is due on August 25, 2014. As of
July 25, 2014, 29 Filter Cases were scheduled for trial or have
been placed on courts' trial calendars. Trial dates are subject to
change.

Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard) is the manufacturer of cigarettes in
the United States. Its Newport is a menthol flavored premium
cigarette brand. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the
Newport brand accounted for approximately 88.4% of its sales
revenue. In addition to the Newport brand, its product line has
four additional brand families marketed under the Kent, True,
Maverick and Old Gold brand names. These five brands include 43
different product offerings. During 2011, it shipped 40.7 billion
cigarettes, all of which were sold in the United States and
certain the United States possessions and territories. Lorillard
produces cigarettes for both the premium and discount segments of
the domestic cigarette market. It sells its products primarily to
wholesale distributors, who in turn service retail outlets, chain
store organizations, and government agencies, including the United
States Armed Forces. In April 2012, it acquired all of the assets
of blu ecigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coca-Cola Co. Suit v. Aqua-Chem Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company's lawsuit against its former subsidiary,
Aqua-Chem, Inc., relating to liabilities in connection with
asbestos lawsuits remain stayed, 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.

On December 20, 2002, the Company filed a lawsuit (The Coca-Cola
Company v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., Civil Action No. 2002CV631-50) in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (the "Georgia Case"),
seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company has no obligation
to its former subsidiary, Aqua-Chem, Inc., now known as Cleaver-
Brooks, Inc. ("Aqua-Chem"), for any past, present or future
liabilities or expenses in connection with any claims or lawsuits
against Aqua-Chem. Subsequent to the Company's filing but on the
same day, Aqua-Chem filed a lawsuit (Aqua-Chem, Inc. v. The Coca-
Cola Company, Civil Action No. 02CV012179) in the Circuit Court,
Civil Division of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (the "Wisconsin
Case"). In the Wisconsin Case, Aqua-Chem sought a declaratory
judgment that the Company is responsible for all liabilities and
expenses not covered by insurance in connection with certain of
Aqua-Chem's general and product liability claims arising from
occurrences prior to the Company's sale of Aqua-Chem in 1981, and
a judgment for breach of contract in an amount exceeding $9
million for costs incurred by Aqua-Chem to date in connection with
such claims. The Wisconsin Case initially was stayed, pending
final resolution of the Georgia Case, and later was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by Aqua-Chem.

The Company owned Aqua-Chem from 1970 to 1981. During that time,
the Company purchased over $400 million of insurance coverage,
which also insures Aqua-Chem for some of its prior and future
costs for certain product liability and other claims. The Company
sold Aqua-Chem to Lyonnaise American Holding, Inc., in 1981 under
the terms of a stock sale agreement. The 1981 agreement, and a
subsequent 1983 settlement agreement, outlined the parties' rights
and obligations concerning past and future claims and lawsuits
involving Aqua-Chem. Cleaver-Brooks, a division of Aqua-Chem,
manufactured boilers, some of which contained asbestos gaskets.
Aqua-Chem was first named as a defendant in asbestos lawsuits in
or around 1985 and currently has approximately 40,000 active
claims pending against it.

The parties agreed in 2004 to stay the Georgia Case pending the
outcome of insurance coverage litigation filed by certain Aqua-
Chem insurers on March 26, 2004. In the coverage action, five
plaintiff insurance companies filed suit (Century Indemnity
Company, et al. v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et al.,
Case No. 04CV002852) in the Circuit Court, Civil Division of
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, against the Company, Aqua-Chem and 16
insurance companies. Several of the policies that were the subject
of the coverage action had been issued to the Company during the
period (1970 to 1981) when the Company owned Aqua-Chem. The
complaint sought a determination of the respective rights and
obligations under the insurance policies issued with regard to
asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem. The action also sought
a monetary judgment reimbursing any amounts paid by the plaintiffs
in excess of their obligations. Two of the insurers, one with a
$15 million policy limit and one with a $25 million policy limit,
asserted cross-claims against the Company, alleging that the
Company and/or its insurers are responsible for Aqua-Chem's
asbestos liabilities before any obligation is triggered on the
part of the cross-claimant insurers to pay for such costs under
their policies.

Aqua-Chem and the Company filed and obtained a partial summary
judgment determination in the coverage action that the insurers
for Aqua-Chem and the Company were jointly and severally liable
for coverage amounts, but reserving judgment on other defenses
that might apply. During the course of the Wisconsin insurance
coverage litigation, Aqua-Chem and the Company reached settlements
with several of the insurers, including plaintiffs, who have paid
or will pay funds into an escrow account for payment of costs
arising from the asbestos claims against Aqua-Chem. On July 24,
2007, the Wisconsin trial court entered a final declaratory
judgment regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under
the insurance policies issued by the remaining defendant insurers,
which judgment was not appealed. The judgment directs, among other
things, that each insurer whose policy is triggered is jointly and
severally liable for 100 percent of Aqua-Chem's losses up to
policy limits. The court's judgment concluded the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation.

The Company and Aqua-Chem continued to pursue and obtain coverage
agreements for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem with
those insurance companies that did not settle in the Wisconsin
insurance coverage litigation. The Company anticipated that a
final settlement with three of those insurers (the "Chartis
insurers") would be finalized in May 2011, but the Chartis
insurers repudiated their settlement commitments and, as a result,
Aqua-Chem and the Company filed suit against them in Wisconsin
state court to enforce the coverage-in-place settlement or, in the
alternative, to obtain a declaratory judgment validating Aqua-Chem
and the Company's interpretation of the court's judgment in the
Wisconsin insurance coverage litigation.

In February 2012, the parties filed and argued a number of cross-
motions for summary judgment related to the issues of the
enforceability of the settlement agreement and the exhaustion of
policies underlying those of the Chartis insurers. The court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment that the 2011
Settlement Agreement and 2010 Term Sheet were not binding
contracts but denied their similar motions related to plaintiffs'
claims for promissory and/or equitable estoppel. On or about May
15, 2012, the parties entered into a mutually agreeable
settlement/stipulation resolving two major issues: exhaustion of
underlying coverage and control of defense. On or about January
10, 2013, the parties reached a settlement of the estoppel claims
and all of the remaining coverage issues, with the exception of
one disputed issue relating to the scope of the Chartis insurers'
defense obligations in two policy years. The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Company and Aqua-Chem on that one
open issue and entered a final appealable judgment to that effect
following the parties' settlement. On January 23, 2013, the
Chartis insurers filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's
summary judgment ruling. On October 29, 2013, the Wisconsin Court
of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Company and Aqua-Chem. On November 27, 2013, the Chartis insurers
filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and
on December 11, 2013, the Company filed its opposition to that
petition. On April 16, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied
the Chartis insurers' petition for review.

The Georgia Case remains subject to the stay agreed to in 2004.

The Coca-Cola Company is a beverage company. The Company owns or
licenses and markets more than 500 nonalcoholic beverage brands,
primarily sparkling beverages but also a variety of still
beverages, such as waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice
drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports
drinks. It owns and markets a range of nonalcoholic sparkling
beverage brands, which includes Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Fanta and
Sprite. The Company's segments include Eurasia and Africa, Europe,
Latin America, North America, Pacific, Bottling Investments and
Corporate. In January 2013, Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Company
announced that it had been acquired by the Company. Effective
February 22, 2013, Coca-Cola Co acquired interest in Fresh Trading
Ltd. In November 2013, Coca-Cola Company and ZICO Beverages LLC
announced that Coca-Cola has acquired the ownership interest in
ZICO.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had 73,900 Pending Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company had 73,900 pending asbestos
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 have recorded liabilities totaling $317
million and $305 million, including related legal fees expected to
be incurred, for potential product liability and other tort
claims, including asbestos claims, at June 30, 2014 and December
31, 2013, respectively. Of these amounts, $43 million and $45
million were included in Other Current Liabilities at June 30,
2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The amounts recorded
were estimated based on an assessment of potential liability using
an analysis of available information with respect to pending
claims, historical experience and, where available, recent and
current trends. Based upon that assessment, at June 30, 2014, we
do not believe that estimated reasonably possible losses
associated with general and product liability claims in excess of
the amounts recorded will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations. However,
the amount of our ultimate liability in respect of these matters
may differ from these estimates.

"We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by
us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these
lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state
and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately
108,500 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or
by entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments to date, including legal
costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately $446 million
through June 30, 2014 and $432 million through December 31, 2013.

"[w]e were one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in
certain state and Federal courts involving approximately 73,800
claimants relating to their alleged exposure to materials
containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by us or
asbestos materials present in our facilities. During the second
quarter of 2014, approximately 400 new claims were filed against
us and approximately 300 were settled or dismissed. The amount
expended on asbestos defense and claim resolution by Goodyear and
its insurance carriers during the second quarter and first six
months of 2014 was $4 million and $10 million, respectively. At
June 30, 2014, there were approximately 73,900 asbestos claims
pending against us. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual
and punitive damages and other relief.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $149 million and $145
million at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $70
million and $75 million as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim
related losses will be recoverable through insurance during the
ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $11 million were included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at both June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013.
The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers
as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from
certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at June 30, 2014, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis
pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Had 2,500 Fibro Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc., is named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and
claims involving approximately 2,500 plaintiffs and claimants,
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 is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily
injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From
1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units
commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a
high-temperature, calcium-silicate based pipe and block insulation
material containing asbestos. The Company exited the pipe and
block insulation business in April 1958. The typical asbestos
personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability,
including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and
seeks compensatory and in some cases, punitive damages in various
amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims").

As of June 30, 2014, the Company has determined that it is a named
defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately
2,500 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the
lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2013, approximately 80% of
plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or
in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke
the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 16%
of plaintiffs specifically plead damages above the jurisdictional
minimum up to, and including, $15 million or less, and 3% of
plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but
less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of plaintiffs specifically
plead damages equal to or greater than $100 million.

Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be
alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits
or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable
is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's
asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against the
Company and other defendants, the defenses available to the
Company and other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which
the claim is made, and the plaintiff's medical history and
exposure to other disease-causing agents.

In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.

The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon
its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of
lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the description of pending matters or in
the following description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June
30, 2014, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately
394,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of approximately $8,700. Certain of these dispositions
have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.
Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $24 million at June
30, 2014 ($12 million at December 31, 2013) and are included in
the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. The Company's
asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and
are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. A part of
the Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution
of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure
of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria
in the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has
generally reduced the number of marginal or suspect claims that
would otherwise have been received. In addition, certain courts
and legislatures have reduced or eliminated the number of marginal
or suspect claims that the Company otherwise would have received.
These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the
Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time.

The Company believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993,
the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion
through 2013, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-
related liability. The Company's ability to reasonably estimate
its liability has been significantly affected by, among other
factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the
United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have
filed for bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant
bankruptcy trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future
disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, and
the success of efforts by co-defendants to restrict or eliminate
their liability in the litigation.

The Company has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The
material components of the Company's accrued liability are based
on amounts determined by the Company in connection with its annual
comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to
the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred
and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos
claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company, but
which the Company believes will be asserted in the next several
years; and (iii) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in
connection with the foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
the Company's accrual are:

   (a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants
       who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing
       insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958;

   (b) the extent to which claims are resolved under the Company's
       administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to
       those set forth in those agreements;

   (c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of
       serious disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases;

   (d) the extent to which the Company is able to defend itself
       successfully at trial or on appeal;

   (e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant
       bankruptcies; and

   (f) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial
       resources and assets continue to participate significantly
       in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

The Company conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-
related liabilities and costs annually in connection with
finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless
significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an
earlier review. If the results of an annual comprehensive review
indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is
insufficient to cover its estimated future asbestos-related costs,
then the Company will record an appropriate charge to increase the
accrued liability. The Company believes that a reasonable
estimation of the probable amount of the liability for claims not
yet asserted against the Company is not possible beyond a period
of several years. Therefore, while the results of future annual
comprehensive reviews cannot be determined, the Company expects
the addition of one year to the estimation period will result in
an annual charge.

The Company's reported results of operations for 2013 were
materially affected by the $145 million fourth quarter charge for
asbestos-related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to
be substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect the Company's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of
significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has
affected and may continue to affect the Company's cost of
borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions. However, the Company believes that its operating
cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be sufficient to
pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and to fund its
working capital and capital expenditure requirements on a short-
term and long-term basis.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer. The
Company is also a preferred partner for various food and beverage
brands. It provides glass packaging for beer, wine, spirits, food,
non-alcoholic beverages, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. It also
produces tableware and stemware for household use. The Company
manufactures glass containers in a range of sizes, shapes and
colors. It has 77 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. The
Company has four reportable segments based on its geographic
locations: Europe, North America, South America and Asia Pacific.
Its customers include Anheuser-Busch InBev, Brown Forman,
Carlsberg, Coca-Cola, Constellation, Diageo, Heineken, Kirin,
MillerCoors, Nestle, PepsiCo, Pernod Ricard, SABMiller, and Saxco
International. The Company has 35 glass container manufacturing
plants located in the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United
Kingdom.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Had 407 Pending Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation had 407 pending asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "A significant number of asbestos-related
product liability claims have been brought against numerous United
States industrial companies where the third-party plaintiffs
allege personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing
products. We have been named, along with hundreds of other
companies, as a defendant in some of these claims. In virtually
all of these claims filed against us, the plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages, or, if an amount is specified, such amount
merely represents a jurisdictional amount. However, occasionally
specific damages are alleged and in such situations, plaintiffs'
lawyers often sue dozens of defendants, frequently without factual
basis or support. As a result, even when a specific amount of
damages is alleged, such action can be arbitrary, both as to the
amount being sought and the defendant being charged with such
damages.

"We did not mine, mill, manufacture or market asbestos; rather we
made a limited number of products which contained encapsulated
asbestos. Such products were provided to industrial users. We
stopped manufacturing these products in the late 1980s.

"We have been named in asbestos litigation primarily in Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Mississippi. As of June 30, 2014, there were 407
pending claims compared to 362 pending claims at December 31,
2013. The number of pending claims at a particular time can
fluctuate significantly from period to period depending on how
successful we have been in getting these cases dismissed or
settled. Some jurisdictions prohibit specifying alleged damages in
personal injury tort cases such as these, other than a minimum
jurisdictional amount which may be required for such reasons as
allowing the case to be litigated in a jury trial (which the
plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them than if heard
only before a judge) or allowing the case to be litigated in
federal court. This is in contrast to commercial litigation, in
which specific alleged damage claims are often permitted. The
prohibition on specifying alleged damages sometimes applies not
only to the suit when filed but also during the trial -- in some
jurisdictions the plaintiff is not actually permitted to specify
to the jury during the course of the trial the amount of alleged
damages the plaintiff is claiming. Further, in those jurisdictions
in which plaintiffs are permitted to claim specific alleged
damages, many plaintiffs nonetheless still choose not to do so. In
those cases in which plaintiffs are permitted to and choose to
assert specific dollar amounts in their complaints, we believe the
amounts claimed are typically not meaningful as an indicator of a
company's potential liability. This is because (1) the amounts
claimed may bear no relation to the level of the plaintiff's
alleged injury and are often used as part of the plaintiff's
litigation strategy, (2) the complaints typically assert claims
against numerous defendants, and often the alleged damages are not
allocated against specific defendants, but rather the broad claim
is made against all of the defendants as a group, making it
impossible for a particular defendant to quantify the alleged
damages that are being specifically claimed against it and
therefore its potential liability, and (3) many cases are brought
on behalf of plaintiffs who have not suffered any medical injury,
and ultimately are resolved without any payment or payment of a
small fraction of the damages initially claimed.

"We believe the rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related
suits against us increased in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 because of
increased activity on the part of plaintiffs to identify those
companies that sold asbestos-containing products, but which did
not directly mine, mill or market asbestos. A significant increase
in the volume of asbestos-related bodily injury cases arose in
Mississippi in 2002. This increase in the volume of claims in
Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform
legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which
became effective on September 1, 2003 and which resulted in a
higher than average number of claims being filed in Mississippi by
plaintiffs seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the
law in effect prior to the passage of tort reform. The number of
asbestos related suits filed against us decreased slightly in 2005
and 2006, but increased slightly in 2007, declined in 2008 and
increased again in 2009 and 2010. The number of lawsuits filed
against us in 2011, 2012, 2013 and the first six months of 2014
(annualized) was significantly higher than in 2010. These new
lawsuits are reflected in the National Economic Research
Associates, Inc. ("NERA") and Marsh USA, Inc. ("Marsh") reports.

"In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they
have suffered any compensable loss as a result of exposure to our
asbestos-containing products. We continue to believe that a
majority of the claimants in pending cases will not be able to
demonstrate exposure or loss. This belief is based in large part
on the limited number of asbestos-related products manufactured
and sold by us and the fact that the asbestos was encapsulated in
such products. In addition, even at sites where the presence of an
alleged injured party can be verified during the same period those
products were used, our liability cannot be presumed because even
if an individual contracted an asbestos-related disease, not
everyone who was employed at a site was exposed to the asbestos
containing products that we manufactured. Based on these and other
factors, we have and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves
in asbestos-related matters."

Rogers Corporation (Rogers) is the supplier of a range of
specialty materials and components for the portable
communications, communications infrastructure, consumer
electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense, and clean
technology. The Company operates in two business segments: Core
Strategic and Other. Core Strategic segment includes High
Performance Foams, Printed Circuit Materials, Power Electronics
Solutions, Curamik Electronics Solutions and Power Distribution
Systems. Its other segment consists of elastomer rollers, floats
and non-woven composite materials products, as well as its
inverter distribution activities. On January 4, 2011, the Company
acquired Curamik Electronics GmbH (Curamik), a manufacturer of
power electronic substrate products. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, the Company discontinued its Thermal Management
Solutions operating segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Obtains Dismissal of 54 PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation obtained dismissal of 54 asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Cases involving us typically name 50-300
defendants, although some cases have had as few as one (1) and as
many as 833 defendants. We have obtained the dismissal of many of
these claims. For the six months ended June 30, 2014, 54 claims
were dismissed and two (2) claims were settled. For the year ended
December 31, 2013, 115 claims were dismissed and 23 were settled.
The majority of costs have been paid by our insurance carriers,
including the costs associated with the small number of cases that
have been settled. For the six months ended June 30, 2014, $0.3
million was paid on settlements, compared to $4.8 million for the
year ended 2013.  Although these figures provide some insight into
our experience with asbestos litigation, no guarantee can be made
as to the dismissal and settlement rates that we will experience
in the future.

"Settlements are made without any admission of liability.
Settlement amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors,
including the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the
nature and extent of the disease alleged and the associated
medical evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the
existence or absence of other possible causes of the alleged
illness of the alleged injured party and the availability of legal
defenses, as well as whether the action is brought alone or as
part of a group of claimants. To date, we have been successful in
obtaining dismissals for many of the claims and have settled only
a limited number. The majority of settled claims were settled for
nominal amounts, and the majority of such costs have been paid by
our insurance carriers. In addition, to date, we have not been
required to pay any punitive damage awards.

"NERA, a consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
mass tort litigation asbestos bodily-injury claims, has
historically been engaged to assist us in projecting our future
asbestos-related liabilities and defense costs with regard to
pending claims and future unasserted claims. Projecting future
asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables that are extremely
difficult to predict, including the number of claims that might be
received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each
claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos
exposure, dismissal rates, costs of medical treatment, the
financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants in
claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case and the impact
of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards,
including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions with
respect to these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty
as the projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, the  variability of our claims history and
consultations with NERA, we currently believe that ten years is
the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for future
costs, and that costs that might be incurred after that period are
not reasonably estimable at this time. As a result, we also
believe that our ultimate asbestos-related contingent liability
(i.e., our indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related
legal fees) cannot be estimated with certainty.

"Our applicable insurance policies generally provide coverage for
asbestos liability costs, including coverage for both settlement
and defense costs. Following the initiation of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of our primary,
umbrella and excess level insurance carriers that provided
applicable coverage beginning in the 1950s through the mid-1980s.
We located primary policies for all such years except for the
early 1960s. With respect to this period, we entered into an
arrangement with ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Company in
2005, pursuant to which we and they share in asbestos liabilities
allocable to such period. We have located umbrella or excess layer
policies for all such years except for the period from May 18,
1961 to May 18, 1964. We believe that a policy was purchased from
Continental Casualty Company covering this period based upon
documents we have found, but the insurer has denied coverage. This
policy has not yet been triggered.

"Where appropriate, carriers were put on notice of the litigation.
Marsh USA, Inc., also known as Marsh Risk Consulting (Marsh), a
consulting firm with expertise in the field of evaluating
insurance coverage and the likelihood of recovery for asbestos-
related claims, has historically been engaged to work with us to
project our insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims.
Marsh's conclusions are based primarily on a review of our
coverage history, application of reasonable assumptions on the
allocation of coverage consistent with certain industry practices,
an assessment of the creditworthiness of the insurance carriers,
analysis of applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
the experience of NERA and a review of NERA's reports.

"To date, our insurance carriers have paid for substantially all
of the settlement and defense costs associated with our asbestos-
related claims. The current cost sharing agreement between us and
such insurance carriers is primarily designed to facilitate the
ongoing administration and payment of such claims by the carriers
until the applicable insurance coverage is exhausted. The
agreement, which replaced an older expired agreement, can be
terminated by election of any part thereto after January 25, 2015.
Absent any such election, the agreement will continue until a
party elects to terminate it.

"In 2013, the primary layer insurance policies providing coverage
for the January 1, 1966 to January 1, 1967 period exhausted. The
cost sharing agreement contemplates that any excess carrier over
exhausted primary layer carriers will become a party to the cost
sharing agreement, replacing the coverage provided by the
exhausted primary policies if the carrier providing such excess
coverage is not already a party to the cost sharing agreement. The
excess carrier providing coverage for the period is currently
providing applicable insurance coverage in accordance with the
allocation provisions of the cost sharing agreement, but has not
yet signed that agreement.

Impact on Financial Statements

"The models developed for determining the potential exposure and
related insurance coverage were developed by outside consultants
deemed to be experts in their respective fields with the forecast
for asbestos related liabilities generated by NERA and the related
insurance receivable projections developed by Marsh. The models
contain numerous assumptions that significantly impact the results
generated by the models. We believe the assumptions made are
reasonable at the present time, but are subject to uncertainty
based on the actual future outcome of our asbestos litigation.
Historically, due to the inherent uncertainties of the forecast
process and our limited amount of settlement and claims history,
we utilized a forecast period of five years, which we concluded
was the most reasonable period for recognizing a reserve for
projected asbestos liabilities, and that costs that might be
incurred after that period were not reasonably estimable at that
time. In 2012, we reviewed this assumption and determined that it
was appropriate to extend the forecast period from five years to
ten years. We reached this conclusion due to the fact that we now
have considerably more experience in addressing asbestos related
lawsuits and have a longer history of activity to use as a
baseline to more accurately project the liability over a longer
period than previously disclosed. Also, settlement trends have
become more meaningful in recent years and we believe that we now
have a more meaningful history of data on which to base our
projections. Further, we determined that a ten year projection
period is now appropriate as, although we have a longer and more
consistent history of data over the last few years, we do not
believe we have sufficient data to justify a longer projection
period at this time. As of December 31, 2013, the estimated
liability and estimated insurance recovery for the ten year period
through 2023 was $59.7 million and $57.1 million, respectively.
There were no changes to these projections during the first six
months of 2014. We review our asbestos related forecasts annually
in the fourth quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances
materially change during the year, at which time we would analyze
these forecasts.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liability and the
related insurance receivables were based on facts known at the
time and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future
events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year,
the average cost of disposing of such claims, the length of time
it takes to dispose of such claims, coverage issues among insurers
and the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, as
well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation
in the United States could cause the actual liability and
insurance recoveries for us to be higher or lower than those
projected or recorded.

"There can be no assurance that our accrued asbestos liabilities
will approximate our actual asbestos-related settlement and
defense costs, or that our accrued insurance recoveries will be
realized. We believe that it is reasonably possible that we will
incur additional charges for our asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in the future, which could exceed existing reserves, but
such excess amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We
will continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have
substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs
related to this asbestos litigation."

Rogers Corporation (Rogers) is the supplier of a range of
specialty materials and components for the portable
communications, communications infrastructure, consumer
electronics, mass transit, automotive, defense, and clean
technology. The Company operates in two business segments: Core
Strategic and Other. Core Strategic segment includes High
Performance Foams, Printed Circuit Materials, Power Electronics
Solutions, Curamik Electronics Solutions and Power Distribution
Systems. Its other segment consists of elastomer rollers, floats
and non-woven composite materials products, as well as its
inverter distribution activities. On January 4, 2011, the Company
acquired Curamik Electronics GmbH (Curamik), a manufacturer of
power electronic substrate products. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, the Company discontinued its Thermal Management
Solutions operating segment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Rule on Fibro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reported that the
California Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a former Bay
Area man who is dying of an asbestos-related cancer can sue a
company that employed his uncle, who used to come home with his
clothes covered in asbestos dust.

A state appeals court had ruled in May that Johnny Kesner,
diagnosed in 2011 with a terminal form of mesothelioma commonly
caused by asbestos, could sue his uncle's former employer, Abex,
which made brake linings filled with asbestos.

While an employer isn't responsible for harm suffered by everyone
who comes in contact with its employees, the First District Court
of Appeal said, a company that uses a toxic substance like
asbestos must take reasonable steps to protect a worker's
household members who are likely to be exposed.

Abex appealed that ruling, and the state's high court voted
unanimously to take it up and decide the scope of an employer's
duty to members of its workers' families. The court also agreed to
review a second asbestos case, in which a lower court had
dismissed a suit by a cancer victim whose husband, a railroad
worker, had asbestos on his work clothes. No hearing date has been
scheduled.

Kesner, a truck driver, said in his lawsuit that he often spent
two or three nights a week at his uncle's West Virginia home as a
teenager, and remembered his uncle showing up in asbestos-covered
work clothes.

The suit said Abex had a pamphlet - which it didn't distribute to
its employees - warning about the dangers of bringing work clothes
home.

The suit was filed in Alameda County, where Kesner formerly lived
and claimed asbestos exposure from other sources. Superior Court
Judge John True dismissed his suit against Abex, agreeing with the
company that any duty it owed to its employees to protect them
from hazardous conditions didn't extend to their households. The
appeals court overturned his decision.

The issue has divided California appellate courts. Another court
rejected a cancer patient's asbestos suit in 2012 and said
allowing claims by an employee's family members would greatly
increase the employer's insurance costs, which it would pass on to
consumers.

The Supreme Court cases are Kesner vs. Superior Court, S219534,
and Haver vs. BNSF Railroad, S219919.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Universities Confirms Fibro in Bedrooms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nelli Bird, writing for BBC News, reported that more than 3,000
students in Wales, England, slept last year in university bedrooms
containing asbestos.

Cardiff, Aberystwyth and the University of Wales Trinity St David
all confirmed they have rooms with the material.  They said that
because the material was considered low risk in the rooms, they do
not tell students it is there.

The British Lung Foundation called this "reckless" while the
National Union of Students called for transparency.

Damage risk

Around 15,000 students in Wales live in university-owned halls of
residences.

Asbestos was widely used as a building material from the 1950s
until the 1980s, often as fireproofing and insulation.

The Health and Safety Executive says that as long as asbestos is
not damaged -- or located somewhere where it can be easily damaged
-- it does not pose a risk.  But it says the fibres if inhaled can
cause lung complaints like asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Cardiff University has the highest number of bedrooms with
asbestos -- it estimates there are around 1,500 where the material
is present at halls including Cartwright Court, Aberconway Hall,
Talybont North and Roy Jenkins Hall.

A spokesperson for the university said: "We hold the health,
safety and security of our students in the highest priority.

"In residences where asbestos is present, it is in Artex on
ceilings and some walls. All high-risk asbestos has been removed.
The remaining low-risk asbestos is securely sealed and would take
a serious intervention, such as drilling, to release fibres.
Cardiff University, along with other UK universities, informed by
HSE guidance, has strong control measures in place to prevent such
an occurrence.

"The university will now review its policy with a view to making
this information available to students in advance."

Aberystwyth University said asbestos was present in 1,088 bedrooms
in Cwrt Mawr, Pantycelyn and Penbryn Halls -- most of which is in
vinyl floor tiles under carpets which the university said posed no
risk.  A spokesperson for the university said it "complies with
legislative standards, and undertakes the appropriate asbestos
testing and surveys".  The University of Wales Trinity St David
said asbestos could be found in 443 rooms at its Lampeter and
Carmarthen campuses.

"All student bedrooms at the University of Wales Trinity Saint
David have been surveyed in accordance with the relevant Health
and Safety Executive requirements," a spokesperson said.

"The university is currently reviewing its position on informing
students," they added.

Beth Button, president of the National Union of Students (NUS)
Wales, said: "It is concerning to hear that such a large number of
rooms in university accommodation across Wales may contain
asbestos.

"We strongly encourage institutions to take this issue seriously
and put the safety of students first, whilst ensuring they remain
completely transparent with students about the standards of their
accommodation."

Dr Emrys Evans, chest physician and spokesperson for the British
Lung Foundation Wales, said he was concerned after their research
in 2012 found that "awareness of asbestos in Wales is generally
quite low, with just 27% of people able to confidently identify
asbestos in their homes".

"Exposure can often occur unwittingly, and so wherever people live
or work they should reliably be informed of the presence of
asbestos. Not to do so is reckless," he added.

The information was given to BBC Wales as a result of a Freedom of
Information (FoI) request.

Four Welsh universities -- Cardiff Metropolitan, Swansea, Bangor
and Glyndwr -- said none of the rooms in their accommodation
contained asbestos.

The University of South Wales said some rooms at its Caerleon
campus contained asbestos but they were no longer used.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Herts NHS Trust Fined Over Fibro Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a National Health Service trust which put
staff at risk to exposure from asbestos for 11 years has been
ordered to pay nearly GBP90,000 by a court.

The West Herts Hospitals NHS Trust had referred itself to the
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in 2011.  It pleaded guilty to
health and safety failings at St Albans Crown Court.

Judge Stephen Gullick criticised it for "very serious and
persistent" failures and fined the trust GBP55,000 and ordered it
to pay costs of GBP34,078.

Chief executive Samantha Jones, who joined the trust in 2013,
said: "We have made significant changes in recent years to the way
we manage and control asbestos across our hospitals, ensuring the
risk of exposure is at the lowest possible level."

The trust, which runs Watford General, Hemel Hempstead General and
St Albans City hospitals, was created in 2000 and introduced an
asbestos risk policy in 2007.

But the HSE found prior to 2011, surveys into the presence of
asbestos were deficient, the manager responsible was inadequately
qualified and training and record keeping were lacking.

The court heard no risk assessments were carried out either before
or after [the 2007] policy.

Maintenance staff in particular had been potentially exposed to
asbestos, it was said. A total of 47 people involved in this work
between 2000 and 2011 had been contacted.

'Grossly inadequate'

Prosecutor Adam Payter said none had developed an asbestos-related
illness, but added there was "a real risk they may contract a
disease in the future."

Passing sentence, Judge Gullick said: "Clearly, management and
supervision was grossly inadequate in ensuring that the asbestos
risk assessment policy was implemented.

"The failures admitted by the trust were very serious and were
persistent [and meant] that wholly inadequate regard was had to
the safety of their employees in the estates department, in
particular."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro to Be Removed From Fire Damaged Church
-------------------------------------------------------------
KFGO-AM reported that Bonanzaville in West Fargo, Dakota, has
learned that the historic St. Johns Lutheran Church, heavily
damaged by fire at the Pioneer Village contains asbestos. Test
results confirm the substance in the structure. Abatement crews
will have to remove the asbestos before demolition can start.

Cass County Historical Society President John Monilaws says the
work will cost "in the thousands of dollars."  He says a fund
raiser will be held in early October to help with demolition
costs. It's an auction of antique items saved from the damaged
church. A fund has also been set up at any Bell State Bank for
anyone wishing to donate to the cause.

Monilaws says it's hoped to have a closed church from Christine,
North Dakota moved to the site of the razed church before winter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Recalls Landfill Mulch Amid Fibro Fears
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kallee Buchanan, writing for ABC News, reported that it is feared
mulch sold at a Wide Bay, Australia, council landfill is
contaminated with asbestos.

The Bundaberg council says it found a small amount of bonded
asbestos in a single load of green waste dumped at its University
Drive facility.  It fears the material may have made its way into
mulch sold from the facility on August 7.

The council's waste and recycling spokesman, Vince Habermann, says
waste disposal areas are regularly inspected to remove
contaminants but it is difficult to spot foreign material that has
been hidden.  He says the asbestos is low risk and only a small
amount made its way into the mulch.  Mr Habermann says it is an
isolated incident but mulch would not be sold from the facility
until a clean-up was conducted.  He says the council will contact
those customers it can identify but anyone who bought the product
on August 7 is urged to contact the council for removal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Completed at La. Elementary School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATC.com reported that asbestos has been removed from floor tiles
in eight classrooms in Southwest Elementary School, in Louisiana.
Assistant Superintendent Joseph Cassimere said the classrooms in
the Opelousas school are back to normal.

Asbestos can cause cancer and has been banned in many products and
uses, but it's not illegal.

Cassimere says the asbestos in the floor tiles at Southwest was
not harmful, but was replaced as a precaution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anderson Man Gets 3 Years for Fibro Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a man from Anderson, South
Carolina, will spend more than three years in prison for
demolishing a mill full of asbestos without properly protecting
his workers or the people living in the area.

U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles said in a press release that state
health officials repeatedly told 37-year-old Scott Farmer that he
had to stop the demolition work in the spring of 2013 and he
ignored the orders.

Prosecutors say Farmer was demolishing the Haynsworth Mill and
selling scrap metal from the building.

A judge sentenced Farmer to 41 months in prison and three years of
probation on a charge of knowing endangerment by release of
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Violations Committed at Waterbury Complex
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hodges, writing for My Champlain Valley, reported that
several asbestos related violations at the Waterbury State Office
Complex, in Vermont, were made public after a records request from
FOX 44.

Records from the Environmental Protection Agency show oversights
in storing and transporting asbestos from the under construction
state office complex.

Chris Crothers is a contractor with Crothers Environmental hired
to help in the asbestos abatement. After the errors, made by a
different company, he was put in charge of monitoring asbestos
removal.

"Asbestos is a known carcinogen and a danger when an individual
would inhale the asbestos virus," Crothers said.

There were seven contracted companies helping remove asbestos. One
of them, NCM, made several mistakes that set the project back.
"I don't know why they chose to do it in that manner but it was
very costly," Crothers said.

Pictures from December 2013 show asbestos found in "A Building".
EPA regulations require those materials be properly sealed and
spayed with water to prevent the material from becoming airborne.
That didn't happen.

Documents show workers were exposed to the hazard but Crothers and
project manager Mike Stevens say only individuals trained to
handle asbestos were exposed.

The building had already been cleaned but needed a second
abatement. According to Stevens none of that was paid for by the
taxpayers.  But it wasn't NCM's only oversight. A truck containing
asbestos that needed to be inspected never returned to the site to
be checked.

"There was a series of three strikes and you're out. And the third
strike would have been removal from the job site," Stevens said
about NCM.

Stevens says NCM improved after that and they've completed their
contract with the state.

We've also learned an investigation by the Vermont Department of
Labor, specifically VOSHA, did not lead to any citations for NCM.
But the EPA's case is still open and an investigator told us that
fines for violations are still possible for both NCM and the
state.

"It is a concern. These types of violations aren't acceptable,"
Stevens said.

NCM did not return our calls for comment.

Our public records request to the Vermont Department of Health was
declined. In a response to our request an official wrote the
documents were exempt because they might be relevant to
litigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Reversed in Fibro Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Washington appeals court has reversed a trial court's
judgment in an asbestos case, concluding the defendant only
identified one issue in its summary judgment request, which was
insufficient.

Judge Rich Melnick delivered the July 22 opinion in the Court of
Appeals for the State of Washington, Division II. Judges Lisa R.
Worswick and Jill Johanson concurred.

Plaintiffs Jack Don and Sandra Kennedy filed the appeal in the
Court of Appeals for the State of Washington, Division II, after
the trial court granted defendant Saberhagen Holdings summary
judgment.

The trial court granted summary judgment after concluding Kennedy
failed to present sufficient evidence to create a reasonable
inference that he was exposed to asbestos provided by Tacoma
Asbestos, Saberhagen's predecessor.

However, the appeals court agreed with the plaintiffs, stating
Kennedy presented sufficient evidence to avoid summary judgment.
As a result, the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Kennedy filed the complaint in January 2012 after being diagnosed
with mesothelioma in November 2011.

He alleges he was exposed to asbestos on the Tacoma waterfront at
Pier 23 between 1964 and 1968 while employed with the Washington
Army National Guard, where he worked near others who installed and
maintained insulation containing asbestos.

He also claims asbestos exposure while working aboard military
vessels, where he was near asbestos insulation repair and
installation.

Kennedy testified that when the vessel's supply shop ran out of
insulation, he was instructed to get materials from Tacoma Boat
Building. He then personally poured the asbestos insulation
product into buckets with water to make insulating asbestos cement
and applied it with his bare hands.

Kennedy claims the defendant, an insulation supplier and
contractor in Tacoma during the 1960s, supplied asbestos to Tacoma
Boat.

On appeal, Kennedy claimed summary judgment was improper, arguing
he provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to create a genuine
issue of material fact showing he was exposed to asbestos supplied
by Saberhagen.

Melnick wrote that generally, asbestos claimants in Washington may
establish exposure to a certain product through circumstantial
evidence alone.

"Due to the long latency of asbestos related diseases, a
plaintiff's ability to recall specific manufacturers of asbestos
he was exposed to may be seriously impaired," he wrote.

In order for circumstantial evidence to be appropriate, it must be
sufficient for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the
claimant was exposed to a defendant's product, the court said.

The appeals court found that "it would be reasonable for a fact
finder to find that Kennedy came in contact with Saberhagen's
product."

However, Saberhagen argued the evidence led to speculation that
Kennedy was exposed to its insulation materials.

The court remained unconvinced.

Melnick added that Saberhagen only identified one issue on summary
judgment, failing to mention its argument that Kennedy did not
identify sufficient admissible evidence showing his harm was a
result of asbestos-containing products supplied by the defendant.

"Saberhagen's motion was clearly focused on exposure, arguing that
Kennedy could not prove he was exposed to Saberhagen's product,"
he wrote. "It merely mentioned the words 'harmed by' or 'causing
his illness' without providing argument on the causation issue."

As a result, Melnick explained that the court ruled only on the
exposure issue.

"Here, the mere mention of the words 'harmed by' or 'causing his
injury' was insufficient to raise the issue of causation with
particularity," Melnick wrote. "Saberhagen provided insufficient
notice to the other party that causation was one of the grounds
for the relief sought."

Therefore, the appeals court reviewed summary judgment only on
sufficiency of evidence regarding Kennedy's alleged asbestos
exposure from Saberhagen's products, reversing the trial court's
ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Sends School Staff Home
----------------------------------------------------
Lauren Baheri, writing for Gaston Gazette, reported that a wing of
Cherryville High School, in North Carolina, was evacuated after
workers drilled into asbestos. Staff members were allowed back in
the school after air samples determined it was safe to re-enter,
said a county official.

Gaston County Fire Marshal Eric Hendrix said employees were
installing smoke alarm upgrades throughout the school this week.
Crews put new holes in the ceiling in order to install the alarms,
and one worker hit a section of asbestos that was in the ceiling.

Asbestos is made up of a combination of fibrous minerals which can
cause lung cancer and mesothelioma in people exposed over a long
period of time.

"As soon as they realized what they hit, they shut down everything
and sent everyone home from that side of the school," Hendrix
said.

A company hired by Gaston County came in to test the school's air
to make sure the asbestos had not spread.

Hendrix said the results of the test indicated the air in the
school was safe to breathe.  Hendrix said the holes will be
covered.

"Asbestos is safe as long as you don't mess with it," he said.

Staff returned to the school and classes will go on as normal on
the first day of school.

School officials did not return calls for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brothers Jailed for Exposing Workers to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Sentinel reported that brothers Akram and Inam Hussain have
been jailed after admitting putting at least seven people in
danger by exposing them to asbestos.

And Akram has also been hit with a GBP43,000 fine following the
potentially fatal health and safety breach at a former print works
on Scotia Road, Burslem, England.

The 52-year-old, of City Road, Fenton, who admitted failing to
ensure the health and safety of non-employees, has been sent to
prison for 22-weeks while his brother Inam, aged 47, of Boughey
Road in Shelton starts a 14 week jail sentence. Inam pleaded
guilty to aiding and abetting the same offence, which occurred
while the pair were overseeing refurbishment at the building.

Judge Mark Eaves, sentencing at Stafford Crown Court, said:
"Anyone at the print works was placed at the highest level of
exposure to asbestos. The possibility for a future fatality is
real."

The brothers put at least seven lives at risk of asbestos
poisoning by trying to clear the dangerous material themselves --
to avoid paying the GBP55,000 cost of having it done
professionally.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Akram, right, and
Inam Hussain, left, following an investigation into works that had
been carried out at a derelict former print works on Scotia Road.

Officers discovered the refurbishment was done without a legally
required asbestos survey or a Construction, Design and Management
Co-ordinator (CDM).

Despite repeated visits from HSE inspectors and numerous
enforcement notices warning them of their failings, the brothers
continued to refurbish the building and disturb asbestos material
-- putting workers' lives at risk.

Stafford Crown Court heard a Prohibition Notice was issued to
Akram -- the owner of the building -- on February 25, 2011
stopping all work with, or liable to disturb, asbestos.  He was
advised to carry out an asbestos survey on the former print works,
which is more than 100 years old.  But he waited until August to
have the survey carried out -- which came back with 14 positive
test results for asbestos in the building.

He was quoted a price of GBP55,020 to have the asbestos removed
from the dilapidated building. Work continued on the print works
for several months before a second survey was ordered by Inam, who
is a taxi driver, and works to remove the asbestos at a cost of
GBP30,000 was carried out in July 2013.

Timothy Pope, prosecuting, said: "It's quite clear that having
obtained the quotation for the works and seeing the amount of
money that was going to be required that Akham, assisted by Inam,
set about removing that asbestos so that they could then have a
second survey conducted in the hope that it would show there was
no asbestos in the building."

Kristin Beswick, mitigating for Akram, told the court: "It is my
submission that his failure to give up the information obtained by
the survey are more to do with his character. He doesn't appear
able to act quickly in relation to matters which the HSE and this
court may well feel require some urgency."

Timothy Harrington, mitigating for Inam Hussain, said: "This case
has already had a detrimental affect on his life."

Akram, aged 52, of City Road, Fenton, was fined GBP43,000 and
given a 22-week jail term while Inam, aged 47, of Boughey Road,
Shelton, was handed a 14 week sentence.

Inam pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the same offence, which
occurred while the pair were overseeing refurbishment at the
building.

Sentencing the brothers, Judge Mark Eaves said: "Failure to deal
with asbestos is a most serious offence and we simply don't know
today what the long term effect might be.

"People were working in the premises from time to time, and there
were probably people working on the site outside that may be
affected. There's a risk that some of these people in 30 or 40
years time will suffer a deadly disease as a result of what you
two did."

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Lindsay Hope said: "The
Hussains have shown a willful disregard for the health and safety
of workers and others.

"This was an appalling case of failing to properly plan, manage
and resource this project, which led to workers being exposed to
risks to their health from asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Gets Prison Time for Unsafe Fibro Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Haydon, writing for The Star-Ledger, reported that William
Muzzio Jr. ran his own asbestos removal business, working in
schools, homes, churches and pre-school centers, but he never
obtained a license to do the work, and he failed to remove all the
toxic material at some of the places where he hired, authorities
say.

"You lined your pockets while you left behind landmines at schools
and day care centers," Superior Court Judge Scott Moynihan said
before sentencing Muzzio to six years in prison.

Last March, the 52-year-old resident of Woodbridge, New Jersey,
pleaded guilty to a second-degree charge of unlawful release of a
toxic pollutant and a third-degree charge of removing or
encapsulating asbestos without a license.  He faced more than 40
charges, and state Deputy Attorney General Mary Erin McAnally
asked that Muzzio receive a seven-year prison term.

State officials began investigating Muzzio and his business,
Citadel Environmental Consultants, in March 2012, after inspectors
determined Muzzio had left asbestos dust and debris at the Townley
School day care facility in Union Township, where he had been
hired to remove pipe insulation.

Muzzio subsequently admitted he had performed unlicensed removal
work at the Union Middle School in Hampton, Hunterdon County, the
Hatchery Hill School and the Willow Grove School in Hackettstown,
and the John Marshall Elementary School in Edison, acting state
Attorney General John Hoffman said in a statement.  He said Muzzio
also admitted he directly or indirectly -- while being assisted by
another person -- performed unlicensed asbestos work at 12 homes
in Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Morris, Ocean and Union counties.

"Muzzio exhibited tremendous greed and callousness with his
unlicensed and unsafe asbestos removal, putting the health of
young children at risk so that he could turn a profit," Hoffman
said.

In court, Muzzio said he never intended any harm.

"I accept full responsibility," he said.

Moynihan noted that Muzzio had no prior criminal record. The judge
said Muzzio could be eligible for parole in slightly more than a
year.

Under the plea agreement earlier this year, he agreed to pay
$19,848 in restitution to the day care center and state Department
of Labor, as well as the Hackettstown, Union Township and Edison
boards of education.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Finds Improper Fibro Handling in Iberville
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert McClendon, writing for The Times-Picayune, reported that
federal safety inspectors have found more than a dozen serious
safety violations related to the handling of hazardous materials
at the Housing Authority of New Orleans' Iberville construction
site.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited four
companies, including general contractor Durr Heavy Construction,
for violations including failure to provide proper decontamination
facilities and proper safety equipment required on job sites
contaminated with lead and asbestos.

Lead, a common paint additive prior to a 1978 ban, is a potent
neurotoxin, and asbestos, once used as a fire-retardant
insulation, is known to cause lung cancer for those subject to
prolonged exposure.

The other companies cited were Abatement Construction & Services
Contractor, Horsepower Construction and Metro Service Group.

Metro is one of the lead contractors on the team recently awarded
a $546 million contract by the New Orleans Aviation Board to build
a new terminal at Louis Armstrong International Airport.

The companies have 15 days from the date of the citation, Aug. 15,
to address the violations or face fines worth a collective
$42,100.

Dana Stumpf, chief administrative officer for Durr, said that the
violations were addressed immediately during OSHA's site visit.
She said that the company will request a hearing with the agency,
as is their right, and present additional information regarding
the company's commitment to safety. "There are more facts that we
can present that show that safety was our first priority," she
said.

Stumpf said that Durr shares responsibility with its
subcontractors to ensure the job site is safe for workers.

Attempts to reach Metro and ACSC were unsuccessful. The owner of
Horsepower, reached by phone, said that she had not been formally
notified of the violations. She declined to give her name.

OSHA visited the site in March after a pair of workers, in
cooperation with Stand with Dignity, a labor-advocacy group, filed
a complaint and staged protests in front of the construction site.

Construction workers Patrick Delaney and Reginald Junior reported
what they called egregious safety violations on the job site.
Workers had no place to change clothes and lacked basic safety
equipment, they said.

HANO, in partnership with the city, is undertaking a $589 million
revitalization effort to the old Iberville public-housing
development, a historic, 858-unit complex that sits on the edge of
the French Quarter and the Central Business District.

Asked why HANO hadn't ensured the safety of workers on its job
site, Director Gregg Fortner issued the following statement
through a spokeswoman:

"We are working with the developer at Iberville to ensure that all
subcontractors comply with federal regulations and adhere to the
necessary safety measures. HANO will monitor the developer to
ensure that immediate corrective action is taken on any valid
findings or citations from regulatory agencies."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Replacing Equipment After Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Hastings, writing for The Columbian, reported that after
asbestos was released in locker rooms at Ridgefield High School,
in Connecticut, the district is working to replace exposed
equipment.

The incident occurred when workers drilled holes into asbestos-
containing ceiling tiles while trying to mount a fire sprinkler
system in the locker rooms. Less than one square foot of the tiles
were damaged.

A contractor with PBS Engineering + Environmental removed the
debris and cleaned the exposed area, the district said.

Air sample tests were also performed, and the results deemed the
area safe for re-entry under the Asbestos Hazardous Emergency
Response Act.

Athletic equipment had to be disposed. The district is taking
inventory and placing orders to replace the gear, such as football
jerseys, shoulder pads, helmets and volleyball practice nets.
Football gear should arrive the first week of September before the
first game, the district said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Samples of Fibro Found at Irish Hospital
---------------------------------------------------------
RTE News reported that samples of asbestos have been found by
contractors working on a new car park at University Hospital
Galway, in Ireland.

The Health Service Executive said that based on information
provided by its consultants there is no ongoing risk to patients
or staff, or the wider public.

In a statement, the West/North West Hospitals Group confirmed
that, the contractor working on a new car park at University
Hospital Galway advised the HSE that minor amounts of asbestos
containing material (ACM) were identified in four of 26 samples of
soil tested from the site.  The site is a brown-field site on the
UHG campus and the tests being undertaken by the contractor were
routine brown-field site tests.

The HSE said the report did not include information on the
concentration of the asbestos, which is currently being defined by
a specialist laboratory.  It said that these results will inform
the appropriate procedures for the safe management of the ACMs.

The HSE said that in defining the management plan, the contractor
will engage with all relevant parties including the Health and
Safety Authority and Galway City Council.

The contractor has ceased work in the area of the site concerned
until results from sampling of the materials are available and
this will inform the ongoing management of these materials.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bus Station Demolition Delayed by Fibro Find
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that higher than anticipated levels of asbestos
found in a former bus station in Northampton, England, may delay
its demolition by up to six months.

The Greyfriars bus station was due to be demolished by the end of
this year.

Now the site is likely to be cleared early in 2015 but the borough
council declined to give a precise target date.

Tim Hadland, from the council, said work was under way with newly
appointed contractors DSM Limited to decide the safest way to
bring the building down.

DSM, who had previously demolished city centre buildings in
Liverpool and Leicester, were experts in this type of work, Mr
Hadland said.  The aim of the council was to create the minimum
amount of disruption in the town centre.

"There is always going to be asbestos in buildings of this age so
it was no surprise," Mr Hadland said.

"As we move through the demolition process we find out more about
the original construction."

The contractor is working without the original construction plans
which no longer exist.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kambah Residents Calls on Gov't for Help
---------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Clisby, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
residents of Kambah in the Australian Capital Territory living in
homes made of asbestos have called on the government for help
following the discovery they're part of a toxic nightmare in the
territory.

The affected residents -- most of them first home buyers -- feel
trapped as they did not know what the homes were made of when they
bought them and in most cases, they have renovated.  This will
have potentially exposed them to deadly asbestos fibres.

The National Capital Development Commission constructed six houses
in a street in the suburb out of asbestos as part of a program of
experimental modular housing in the 1970s.

While bonded asbestos is found in thousands of homes in the ACT
built before 1985 these Kambah homes are built almost entirely of
the toxic substance.

Building reports provided during the sales process did not
indicate that all external and internal facings in the home
contained asbestos.

As the ACT government prepares to make a decision on the fate of
more than 1000 Mr Fluffy asbestos homes the Kambah residents want
their homes similarly treated.

While chief minister Katy Gallagher says the support package is
for houses affected by loose-fill asbestos only she has not ruled
out the possibillity of assistance.

"The government is aware of the concerns of owners of these Kambah
homes and has sought further advice from the taskforce on this
issue," she said.

Ms Gallagher said it was important to note that the houses were
not affected by Mr Fluffy but asbestos fibres bonded with cement.
"This material is generally considered low risk if it is in good
condition and not disturbed," she said.

Resident Daniel Gray describes the situation as a "first home
buyers' nightmare". He purchased one of the asbestos homes in 2011
with plans to renovate the 1970s property and has pumped all his
savings into the renovation.

This included pulling out parts of the panelling to make the
living and dining area open plan and modernizing the inside.
Mr Gray put the home on the market about three months ago when he
had an opportunity to buy into the inner south but a sale fell
through following the buyer's discovery it was made of asbestos.

"You buy a house, you renovate it to make it your own home -- but
when it's time to move on you can't," Mr Gray said.

"It's a first home buyer's nightmare. We've bought a debt."
Taylor Keyth and Christine Uhe purchased their first home in 2009
and had no idea they had bought a house made of asbestos.

While renovations had already been carried out on the property the
couple still made several changes including putting in an exhaust
fan and air conditioning.

They have a three-year-old daughter, Amity, and twins on the way
and would like to extend the home.

Mr Keyth said there was nothing the home owners could do with the
properties to make them safer.

"You can't just say remove the asbestos because you'll just have
the window frames," he said.

Jay Kelly, who spoke to the Sunday Canberra Times earlier this
month, had already completed internal renovations when he found
out his house was made of asbestos.

Mr Kelly, who lives with his partner Liz Maybanks and her
children, is furious with the inaction shown by the ACT government
over the issue.

Another asbestos home owner in the street said he had assumed the
house would contain some asbestos when he purchased it because it
was an old property.  But he said he would never have purchased it
if he had known it was made of  asbestos -- something he found out
a year after he bought it.

"I was quite shocked -- I was very angry that the previous owners
knew exactly the composition of the house and the building report
didn't mention it," the resident said.

He said the government should take responsibility for the homes
because it had sold them following their use as public housing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cowley Plant Worker Dies After Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Evans, writing for Oxford Mail, reported that a former
plant health and safety officer in Cowley, England, died from
exposure to asbestos at the factory, a coroner ruled.

The family of Anthony Boodell, from Kidlington, are taking legal
action over his death on April 25 aged 75, it was revealed at his
inquest.  He worked at the former Pressed Steel factory from 1954
to 1988 where he contracted epithelial mesothelioma caused by
asbestos.

In a 2010 statement filed at county court he said he was
responsible as a tinsmith for removing ovens and furnaces and
stripping lagging to 1968.  The statement, filed the same year he
began to develop breathing difficulties, said: "As I removed the
asbestos lagging I was exposed to asbestos dust."

Assistant Oxfordshire coroner Peter Clark said: "He had previously
worked in removing and relaying lagging and had undertaken other
repairs and, as a result, was exposed to asbestos dust."

This also came from "pipework and lagging and this being the
likely cause of the mesothelioma".  He recorded a verdict of death
from industrial disease.  Although he was "doing extremely well"
by March 2013, he went for radiotherapy the next year.

A statement from consultant in respiratory medicine Dr Najib
Rahman said apart from heart disease that was being controlled, he
had "no other significant medical history".  He said it was
"beyond reasonable doubt" that Mr Boodell -- who died at the
Churchill Hospital's Sobell House Hospice -- had epithelial
mesothelioma.

Mr Clark heard legal proceedings are still ongoing.

Mr Boodell was appointed foreman in 1968 and principal safety
engineer in 1986 and the disease presented itself 10 to 30 years
after exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Residents Protest Illegal Use of Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Guest, writing for Hudson County View, reported that a
majority of the Hispanic protestors accused Mayor Nick Sacco of
discriminating against them for allowing Eagle Recycling to remain
open after receiving citations for safety violations from the NJ
New Jersey DEP, US EPA, and H.C. R. C. (Hudson County Regional
Health Commission) since May 2009.

North Bergen spokesman Phil Swibinski said the facts in this issue
are being skewed.

"North Bergen acted aggressively fine, sanction, and when
necessary, Eagle Recycling, whenever it was jurisdictionally
appropriate. The township issued Eagle a fine of over $100,000 in
October 2012, and since then, the company went bankrupt and is
operating under completely different leadership."

"The community is tired of poison being brought into this town.
The EPA and DEP have proven that there's asbestos in the Lincoln
recycling building and radioactive material has been in this
building for the past 15 years. Everyone is really diminishing in
health. If you talk to the neighbors, each of them has their own
horror story," said James Michael De Los Santos, 27, of  North
Bergen.

"Based on frequent DEP visits from the state, there has never been
one documented case of asbestos. Anyone who says otherwise is
lying," Swibinski added.

Unlike Eagle Recycling, that filed for bankruptcy in April 2013,
Lincoln Recycling -- who has a completely new management team --
underwent $2.5 million worth of improvements. One of the
improvements consisted of an additional surfacing to the parking
lot closest to residents to reduce dust particles.

Eagle and Lincoln Recycling have two completely different owners,
while some employees from the previous recycling plant remain at
Lincoln.

In a letter from Lincoln Recycling to the township of North
Bergen, the recycling plant stated how they "have limited the
amount of material [their] customers bring in when [they] have had
CSX service failures in an effort to keep the amount of material
in the building at a manageable level."

"If you go around the houses you'll find dust particles
streamlining the tile boards which come from the recycling
plant," said Odemaris Ramirez, 50, a former board of education
candidate -- also the Republican Freeholder candidate running
against the Sacco-backed Democratic candidate -- Anthony Vainieri
-- in November.

Protestors vocalized their concerns with chants like: "As our
lungs get sicker, Sacco's wallet gets thicker," at the protest on
4711 Dell Avenue.

In April 2011, Eagle Recycling's New York facility pleaded guilty
in the federal courts of Utica, NY, for the Clean Water Act
violation scheme, as well as fraudulence of documentation. In
Frankfort, NY, the recycling plant agreed to pay a $500,000 fine
to pay for restoration costs of farmer's property.

Some protesters at the rally surrounding the recycling plant said
they are in the process of gathering medical records, obtaining an
attorney, and filing a class action lawsuit, residents at the
protest told Hudson County View.

Mario M. Blanch, an attorney who is a member of the North Bergen
Concerned Citizens Group (a vocal anti-Sacco group), has written a
formal letter to Bob Martin -- the Commissioner of the State
Department of Environmental Protection -- requesting an
investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found at Concept School's Chatham Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Schlikerman, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reported that
Standing water from a leaky roof, visible mold and a pungent smell
that hangs in the air, floor tiles made of asbestos -- those were
just some of the problems Concept Schools had to contend with
before getting a school building near Chatham, in Chicago, ready
for kids after scrambling to find a new location this summer,
according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information
Act.

Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett announced she's
not letting the school open because the South Side building, which
once housed a private school, won't be ready for students.

"Mold is visibly evident throughout many of the classrooms. The
mold and mildew is so bad, that a handful of the classrooms cannot
be accessed due to the noxious, overwhelming, suffocating scent,"
an inspector wrote for CPS officials in July.

The property that was to house Concept Schools' Horizon Science
Academy-Clay Evans is made up of two buildings. One of the
buildings is in "dire condition" mostly because of a leaking roof,
the inspector wrote.

"Water infiltration is so prevalent throughout most of the
classrooms there is standing water, both on the floor and in the
light fixtures in the ceiling," according to the inspection
report. "Carpets in many of the classrooms are soaking wet, and
tiles in specific communal areas are peeling. The majority of the
acoustical ceiling tiles have been removed or fallen to the floor.
Mold is visibly evident throughout many of the classrooms."

The other building is in "fair" condition, he wrote, recommending
cosmetic changes and accessibility upgrades.

Additionally, asbestos material was found in some of the flooring
and it had to be removed and replaced.  The roof also had to be
fixed, records show.

"Concept Schools, which our board had approved, has been unable to
secure a safe and viable facility for the Clay Evans campus and so
we will not be allowing the school to open for very obvious
reasons -- there's no facility," Byrd-Bennett said.

"We thought we could make the necessary investments," Concept Vice
President Salim Ucan said.

The charter school planned to open in September and use just one
of the buildings while work was finished by October, records show.

Now Ucan said the focus is finding schools for more than 400
enrolled children and 40 teachers and administrators hired to
staff the Clay Evans campus.

"We are working with the area charter schools to see if they have
openings for the respective grades," he said. "We are trying to
see if we can transfer them to our existing schools."

Concept, whose Des Plaines headquarters were raided by the FBI in
June, lost out on its first facility, a building owned by an arm
of a church headed by the Rev. Charles Jenkins.

It then proposed the former school building location, which is
being foreclosed on by Urban Partnership Bank. David Vitale, the
president of the Chicago Board of Education, is chairman of that
bank.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Awarded GBP175,000 in Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glasgow Evening Times reported that a judge awarded each of John
McCarn's five children GBP35,000 after accepting the family was
robbed of at least another 18 years with their dad.

John, of Greenock, in Scotland, worked for Scott's Shipbuilding
and Engineering in the town for just five years as an apprentice
from the age of 14.  But John, who has 11 grandchildren, wasn't
diagnosed until January 2009, when he was told he had malignant
mesothelioma and had only months to live.

His distraught daughter Catherine, 35, spoke for the first time
about her anger and grief for her dad, who took over the role of
both parents after her mum died of cancer when she was a teenager.

Before his death at the age of just 69 in November 2009, John
launched legal action against the shipbuilder, which closed down
in 1993.

But it has taken his family five years of fighting to get Vince
Cable, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who
is responsible for the rights and responsibilities of the former
British shipbuilders, to admit liability.

At the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lord Bannatyne ruled that
life expectancy was a "significant factor" in the assessment of
compensation.

Mum-of-one Catherine insisted, "no amount of money" could ever
compensate for the loss of her dad.

The 35-year-old, who is getting married soon, said it was,
"heartbreaking," that her dad won't be there to walk her down the
isle.

Catherine wept as she recalled how her fit and healthy dad rapidly
went downhill after the cancer diagnosis.  She said: "I will never
get over his death. He was everything to me -- no amount of money
can ever bring him back.

"My dad didn't want to die, he wasn't ready.

"His death was the most awful, painful thing ever and I had to
watch this proud, fit and healthy man crumble in front of me.

My dad was a very active man who was always walking, cycling and
swimming but his health deteriorated so quickly.

"He lost weight and then one morning he couldn't even swim the
length of the pool.

"He went to the doctor in November 2008 and he died a year later.
That's how quick it was.

"I am the only girl in the family, and the youngest, and my dad
took over as a father and mother figure when my mum died when I
was 19. We were so close, there was so much love between us.

"To think that he won't be there to walk me down the aisle is just
heartbreaking. He was the most wonderful dad and grandad.

"My dad was fitter than me and he would have had a long life ahead
of him."

Catherine and her four brothers Joseph, 45, Paul, 42, Robert, 41,
and Stephen, 40, who all live in Dublin, carried on John's fight
for justice through the Scottish courts, backed by Thompsons
Solicitors in Glasgow.

She said: "When my dad found out it was working at the Greenock
shipyard that was killing him he was angry, disgusted and felt it
was totally unfair he was being robbed of his life through no
fault of his own.

"He was just gutted.

"He wanted those responsible for his death brought justice."

The McCarn's lawyer Craig Smilie, of Thompsons, said: "The
decision by the Court of Session to award Mr McCarn's family this
high level of compensation is very important as it recognises they
had their father taken from them far sooner than he should have
been.

"Were it not for his exposure to asbestos in the Clyde shipyards
John would have lived for 18 more years.

"The premature loss of a loving father and grandfather was
devastating to the family and its only right the Scottish courts
recognised that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Gives Warning on the Deadly Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portsmouth News reported that a man who was exposed to
asbestos and now has a lung condition is raising awareness of the
substance and its effects.

Brian Cleal, 67, is working with support group Breathe Easy and
lawyers Moore Blatch to promote understanding of the early
symptoms associated with mesothelioma -- which is caused by
exposure to asbestos.

Mr Cleal, from Crookhorn, in England, was diagnosed with the
condition in 2008. It was linked to his father, George Cleal, who
worked as a shipwright driller at Portsmouth Dockyard.

As a youngster, Brian recalls that his father frequently returned
from work covered head to toe in a white powder.  Brian's father
was diagnosed with mesothelioma and suffered early symptoms linked
to the disease, such as breathlessness. But it wasn't until 2001
that George started to experience symptoms.

He said: 'I'd walk upstairs and I'd become breathless, but it was
nothing like I had experienced before.

'It felt like I couldn't get enough air into my lungs.

'I also noticed it when I went to pick up my tools for work, which
was becoming really hard to do.'

It took a further six years to identify the condition --
eventually a CAT scan confirmed that he had been exposed to
asbestos.

This had affected the walls of his lungs and he was also diagnosed
with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Asbestos-related conditions can be a challenge to diagnose, and so
law firm Moore Blatch, which represents medical cases, said people
need to look out for symptoms.

Asbestos--related disease expert Michael Osborne said: 'In our
experience early symptoms of severe breathlessness often progress
on to frequent chest infections, which can be confused and
associated with other common conditions.

'GPs must be encouraged to refer patients with such symptoms much
earlier.

'Often early respiratory problems and chest infections are treated
with antibiotics.

'But they do not deal with the underlying lung condition.

'And this can leave many people struggling to cope with
reoccurring symptoms, as well as having a huge impact on families
financially.'


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation Costs Increase With Fibro Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanette DeForge, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the
discovery of asbestos hidden behind lockers and in the ceiling has
started eating away the contingency fund set aside for the
renovation project at the former Chicopee High School, in
Massachusetts.

City Councilor William Zaskey, the chairman of the renovation
committee, said he authorized two emergency change orders totaling
about $60,000 that will allow the asbestos to removed. He did it
on the advice of the owners project manager and to prevent any
delays in the work.

Since the budget received a credit of about $19,000 for other work
that was planned and did not have to be done, the expense reduced
the contingency budget by $41,000.

"It is not a surprise," said Norman Benjamin, of Arcadis who is
serving as the owner's project manager for the renovation.
"Asbestos removal is something you just don't know. They did the
best testing they could but you remove the lockers and you just
don't know."

With the changes, the contingency fund totals about $1.29 million.

"We used 3 percent (of the fund) and we are 7 percent completed
with the project," he said.

But he told the commission in a meeting, Fontaine Brothers of
Springfield, the contractor hired to renovate the school, has
found more work that has not been included in the bid. Those items
are not emergencies and are being reviewed.

"We have to make sure every extra is needed," said Andy Crane, a
committee member.

If all the proposals are accepted it would eat 17 percent of the
contingency fund with just one month into the project, he said.

The city is on a tight budget and a tight deadline to finish the
project. Even before the project started, the lowest bid was about
$700,000 over budget. The city will have to pick up that amount in
total because the state will reimburse 80 percent of the costs of
the project but only up to a cap of $37.9 million.

At the same time the job must be finished by late summer. The
deadline must be met because both middle schools and several
elementary schools will be redistricted when then renovated school
is opened and that cannot be done during the school year.
Benjamin said he expects to majority of the change orders to
happen in the early part of the project and especially now when
asbestos is being removed.

Already all the asbestos on the third and fourth floors has been
cleared and electrical work is being started on those floors, said
Jason Bhajan, assistant project manager for Fontaine Brothers.

At the same time some of the plumbing work and heating and air
conditioning work is starting on the upper floors while asbestos
removal continues on lower floors, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Slows Roosevelt Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------
Marta Jewson, writing for St Cloud Times, reported that the
remnants of the Roosevelt Education Center, in Minnesota, are
slowly being broken apart and hauled away more than two months
after the storied school burned down.

The removal project that was expected to be finished about the
time school starts will likely stretch into mid- or late
September, Legacy Services Corp. President Mike Adair said.

"We've started some of the removal," Adair said.

The amount of asbestos in the almost 95-year-old school meant
Adair's company had to get permits from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, which controls where the debris can be disposed.

He said MPCA staff were on the job site the day Legacy started
work.

"It's going a little slower than we wanted," Adair said. "We are
handling everything really delicately."

He says his crews have been instructed to save the two pillars
that can be seen in old photos of the school.

He said district officials also are hoping Legacy can recover some
file cabinets that were in the school.

"To find two file cabinets is kind of a difficult project," he
said.

They know where the filing cabinets are; they just have to wait
until they dig that deep in the debris, he says.

Asbestos removal

The presence of asbestos also presents some other limitations for
the cleanup crew.

"We can only take debris to the landfill when it's 10 miles per
hour or less winds," Adair said.

That's so the fine particles don't get picked up and dispersed by
the wind. Asbestos fibers are dangerous if they become trapped in
the lungs or body tissue.

As a result of increased incidences of health issues associated
with asbestos exposure, including lung cancer and mesothelioma,
the government has strict rules associated with cleanup and
disposal.

By mid- to late September, Adair aims to have hauled away building
material, including the foundation, and have backfilled the grade.
He says the public can help by respecting the signage and staying
away from debris.

Insurance claim

The district has yet to receive an offer from the insurance
company that covered Roosevelt.

To ensure the school system recoups the full value of the
building, the board will consider hiring a public insurance
adjuster to work for the district at the recommendation of
district administration.

The adjuster would collect 2.75 percent of the settlement,
according to business manager Kevin Januszewski.

Board members questioned that fee at a finance committee meeting,
but Januszewski said based on the business office's research,
that's how the firms tend to work.

Based on new construction costs of an estimated $150 per square
foot, and Roosevelt's size of approximately 56,000 square feet,
rebuilding would cost roughly $8 million, according to
Januszewski.

If the district hired the adjuster, and settled for $8 million, it
would have to pay the adjuster roughly $220,000.

The board will consider hiring the adjuster at its meeting.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Follows Families' Fears Over Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Rory Brigstock-Barron, writing for Islington Gazette, reported
that families are fearing for their health over concerns of
"irresponsible" disposal of asbestos at a building site in
Holloway, England.

Workers at the former Trust Meat Co building, at the junction of
Hillmarton Road and Camden Road, have allegedly been seen hacking
away at roof tiles and tearing them apart in broad daylight, yards
from family gardens.

Children have been kept indoors over parents' fears that safety
standards have been breached and the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) is investigating after visiting the site.

Property agents MHA Associates, which plan to build 34 homes on
the site, say they were aware of the asbestos and have employed a
licensed contractor to carry out the work.

Father and builder Andros Anton, 57, whose five children live next
door to the building, believes they are in danger.

"It's irresponsbile," he said. "From what I can see they have
untrained people smashing the asbestos and ripping it up -- you
can see the dust coming off it.

"They've assured us that everything is fine and that all the boxes
are ticked but I've been in the building industry all my life and
I've seen it with my own eyes.

"This is supposed to be a soft strip demolition, taking it apart
carefully to minimise dust.

Mr Anton now has a certificate of analysis confirming the presence
of Chrysotile asbestos at the site and has arranged with a
solicitor to have names of his family members and neighbours put
on the asbestos register.

He has also stopped his youngest daughters, Marina, eight, and,
Ria, 12, from playing outside.

The HSE visited the site and have asked to see video footage taken
by Mr Anton of the roof tiles being removed.

MHA Associates, which own the site, said it was aware of the
asbestos and employed a licenced contractor to carry out the work.

Islington Council visited the site on July 22 and was satisfied
with the method of removal described.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE, Chemical Co. Beats PI Injury Claims in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a Delaware state
court has spared General Electric Co. and chemical supplier
Reichhold Inc. from claims by certain plaintiffs in asbestos
injury litigation who claimed they were exposed to the
carcinogenic mineral through products manufactured by the two
companies.

Judge Paul R. Wallace granted a summary judgment motion by GE on
the claims of plaintiff Michael Jamesson, who had worked as a
laborer for Square D Co., a company that made electrical
components including circuit breakers and was acquired by
electrical giant Schneider Electric.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Remands Suit by Ex-Construction Worker
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court
has relinquished jurisdiction over an asbestos exposure suit,
noting that the plaintiff had not alleged any federal law claims.

As such, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, rejecting
United Technologies Company's removal of the suit.

Michael Burns alleged in his lawsuit that his exposure to
asbestos-containing products while working as a construction
worker led him to develop mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Permits Disclosure of Fibro Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reported that a judge has overruled an emergency motion 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 said the names of people who sued Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC before it filed for bankruptcy and who cast
creditors' ballots in the In re Flintkote Co. bankruptcy can be
disclosed to Imperial Tobacco.

Other information that can be disclosed includes the type of
diseases the plaintiffs claim stem from their exposure to
asbestos, the plaintiffs' law firms and other bankruptcy cases in
which they filed ballots.

Imperial Tobacco has agreed to keep the data confidential and only
to use it in litigation regarding Flintkote.

A group of asbestos claimants filed the emergency motion seeking
to block the gasket-maker from releasing the information.

Garlock said that complying with Imperial Tobacco's subpoena would
not violate a protocol established to allow people and companies
to object to the unsealing of evidence of alleged
misrepresentation by asbestos plaintiffs lawyers.

Hodges has set out the protocol to govern public access to
evidence of misrepresentation by plaintiffs' lawyers in several
cases that Garlock settled in the past or in which Garlock lost
jury verdicts. That alleged evidence of misrepresentation led him
to estimate that Garlock likely owes $125 million to asbestos
plaintiffs, not around $1 billion to $1.3 billion as the
plaintiffs alleged.

The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants said
that Garlock and related debtors intended "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."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Law Firm Donates to State Races
------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that all across
the nation, state candidates on every level are benefiting
financially from the nation's leading asbestos litigation firms.

Although based in Dallas, the Baron & Budd PC law firm and its
attorneys have donated thousands of dollars to several out-of-
state Democrats running for state offices, including Charlie
Crist, who is seeking to reclaim the title of Florida governor,
and two Nevada candidates -- Ross Miller (attorney general) and
Lucy Flores (lieutenant governor) -- according to
followthemoney.org.

The site further shows the firm gave $25,000 to the committee Top
PAC.

In-state, Baron & Budd has thrown a sizeable portion of its
contributions to a candidate not actually running for a state
office, donating a total of $12,500 to Dallas Democratic Party
Chairwoman Darlene Ewing, according to the Texas Ethics
Commission.

However, the bulk of the firm's donations ($25,000) have gone
toward the re-election campaign of state Sen. John Carona, R-
Dallas.

Since 2000, Carona has received around $85,000 in donations from
Baron & Budd, campaign finance records show.

The firm has also donated $5,000 to the Dallas County Democratic
PAC and $3,000 to Dallas Judge Martin Lowy, a Democrat presiding
over the 101st Civil District Court.

Approximately 650 miles north of Dallas, the Simmons Law Firm in
Alton, Ill., has shown an interest in South Carolina state
elections, donating $2,500 to Henry McMaster, a former state
attorney general and Republican candidate for lieutenant governor,
and $500 to incumbent Comptroller Richard Eckstorm, a Republican,
according to followthemoney.org.

Within Illinois, the Simmons Law Firm and its attorneys have
donated tens of thousands of dollars to state candidates and
committees, including a $20,000 donation to the Illinois Trial
Lawyers Association PAC on Jan. 2, according to the Illinois State
Board of Elections.

Some of the larger donations to state candidates include two
donations of $5,000 a piece to state Sens. Don Harmon and Mike
Frerichs, both of whom are Democrats.

The Simmons Law Firm has also donated $10,500 to the Committee to
Support John Cullerton for State Central Committeeman, and $2,500
to Citizens for Clarence Harrison.

Harrison is an appointed associate judge running for circuit judge
in Madison County -- a hotbed for asbestos litigation in which the
Simmons firm practices. Harrison also had presided over the
asbestos docket until the time he announced his candidacy last
year.

On Jan. 31, firm founder attorney John Simmons donated $5,000 to
John Lakin, who is running for Madison County sheriff.

Keeping inline with the Simmons firm, Napoli Bern Ripka &
Associates LLP, which has offices stretching from the width of the
nation, also donated to the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association,
forking over $5,000 to the organization so far in the 2013--2014
election cycle, according to followthemoney.org.

Finally, New York asbestos law firm Weitz & Luxenberg hasn't been
as busy as its colleagues, only doling out a single in-state
contribution of $10,000 to the Sufflok County Democratic Committee
on June 6, according to the New York State Board of Elections.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Fake Cigarettes
----------------------------------------------------
Nottingham Post reported that fake cigarettes containing dead
flies, asbestos and even human excrement have been seized by
councils including Nottingham, England.

The fake fags which cause abnormally high levels of cancer causing
chemicals are being taken off the streets by councils.

Hundreds of thousands of cigarettes have been found in
Wolverhampton, Bristol and Nottingham, the Local Government
Association has said.

Some of the cigarettes have contained absestos, mould, dust, dead
flies, rat droppings and human excrement.

Many also contain much higher levels of toxic ingredients such as
tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium and arsenic than
genuine brand-name cigarettes.

Joanna Spicer, vice-chairman of the LGA's Safer and Stronger
Communities Board, said: "Counterfeit tobacco being sold cheaply
through the black market by rogue traders is hampering council
efforts to reduce smoking.

"People buying cheap cigarettes might think they are getting a
great deal, but the truth is that they're not. If they knew what
they might contain, the might think twice about buying them."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Fears Complicate Cafe Fire Situation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the presence of asbestos in two buildings
in Brewarrina, New South Wales, destroyed by fire this week has
emerged as a concern for local authorites.

Police are investigating the cause of the fire in Cafe De Luxe but
it is not being treated as suspicious.  The fire spread from the
cafe to also destroy the adjoining vacant building.

Captain of Brewarinna Fire and Rescue, Teresa Johnson, says only
the cafe's front face remains standing.  She says while the loss
of the cafe is significant, it could have been a lot worse for the
town.

"We are very lucky," she said.

"We managed to keep it to the two buildings."

She says she got the fire a few minutes after the first crews
arrived at the scene.

"We were going to lose the whole main street at one stage," she
said.

"But with some pretty quick foot work on behalf of the crew
everyone stepped up to the plate.

"It was very well done."

Fire fighters remained on the scene of the Cafe De Luxe fire in
Brewarrina to extinguish hot spots and prevent any outbreak.

The presence of asbestos in the cafe building, which was
constructed in 1926, is now a concern for authorities.

The town's main street remains closed with local diversions around
the buildings.

Captain of Brewarrina Fire and Rescue, Teresa Johnson, said there
was asbestos in both buildings..

"We had to close the main street because we have had a few issues
with asbestos and concerns regarding structural collapse of the
front facade of the old Cafe de Luxe," she said.

"They are in adjoining premises.

"We have basically had to keep the site wetted down with some
assistance from some council traffic management and police.

"Predominately the best process, the only thing we can do with
asbestos is to keep it wet."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Factory Faces Legal Action Over Fibro Death
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Davies, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that a biscuit
factory in Merseyside, England, is facing legal action over claims
a mum- of-seven died from contact with asbestos there.

Seventy-four-year-old Isabel O'Neill, from Aintree, was diagnosed
with a cancer linked to the toxic material.

Now her son Mike, from Huyton, is suing the Jacob's Biscuits
factory, on Long Lane, Walton , be-cause he believes it was the
source of her asbestos contamin-ation.

Mr O'Neill, 52, said: "My mum did suspect Jacob's was where she
came into contact with asbestos be-cause a lot of her friends who
worked there had contracted cancer. She came through an age where
asbestos was everywhere."

Mrs O'Neill, who was married to Dennis for more than 50 years, was
a relief worker at the factory between 1976 and 1982.

Her son said: "Mum was a real chatterbox.

"She used to describe working there. She'd come in and say it was
a dusty atmosphere and talk about men coming in and stripping the
machines down as the girls worked close by.

"The impression she gave me was that people were working in and
around the maintenance men stripping the machines down, stripping
air conditioning units down above their heads, all while people
worked not far away.

"While my mum was working on that site, every- one knew how
dangerous asbestos was. I feel a real sense of anger that she's
caught something through no fault of her own, something that cut
her life short.

"She was full of energy. She was healthy, completely independent.
She had arthritis but that didn't stop her getting around. She
kept herself fit and healthy and then this devastating illness
hit."

Mr O'Neill, a foster career of 15 years, has urged any of his
mother's former colleagues or people who worked on the site to
come forward with information about the working conditions.

He said: "It's so important that we get some answers -- not just
for our peace of mind but for other people who have worked in
Jacob's factory as well and been exposed to it as well.

"When she was diagnosed with mesothelioma, she was given six
months to live. She lived six months to the day. It was a year
before her death that she started to complain of pain and loss of
weight.

"The doctors looked into everything that could be causing it. It
was only when we ordered a CT scan and paid for it ourselves that
it showed up this thing in her chest. That's when they discovered
what it was.

"It was shocking how that disease just overwhelmed her body."

Mr O'Neill's lawyer, Louise Larkin, from Slater & Gordon, said:
"We hope that some of Isabel's colleagues, or even people who
worked on the site during her period there, will be able to help
piece together the conditions to which she was subject.

"She had described working near large ovens which were lagged with
asbestos which were constantly being repaired.

"We are keen to hear from other employees who can give more
information about how the asbestos became airborne."

Contact Louise Larkin on 0151 353 9931 or email
LLarkin@slatergordon.co.uk

Jacob's have not responded to requests for a comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Northcott Buildings
--------------------------------------------------------
The Herald-Dispatch reported that asbestos has been found in
roofing and caulking materials at the Northcott Court buildings,
in West Virginia, slated for demolition.

According to the Huntington WV Housing Authority, the asbestos
found is in trace amounts and could not become airborne through
demolition, but it is proceeding with removal "out of an abundance
of caution."

The Housing Authority did a major asbestos abatement on the
Northcott complex in the early 1990s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Smoker's Award Won't Be Reduced in Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that Maryland's highest court has ruled that a trial court
properly rejected a defendant's request to have the jury apportion
damages in an asbestos case involving a former smoker.

Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. delivered the opinion on July 21 in the
Court of Appeals of Maryland with judges Lynne A. Battaglia and
Irma S. Raker concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The decision involved four separate asbestos cases bundled for
trial in the circuit court. The appeals court addressed two issues
raised on appeal: The argument on use plaintiffs in each case and
the argument on apportionment of damages in one specific
decedent's case.

In regards to the "use plaintiffs" argument, the appeals addressed
whether they were precluded from recovering damages by not
formally joining in the proceedings.

The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust was the only
remaining defendant at the time of trial in February 2011. Each
plaintiff alleged asbestos exposure from asbestos-containing
insulation applied to pipes.

Wallace & Gale was a Baltimore-based insulation and roofing
contractor that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1985, thus
setting up the trust to handle its asbestos liability.

After a 15-day trial, the jury awarded each of the plaintiffs
separate awards against Wallace & Gale.

Then in May 2011, the trial court entered orders in the four cases
reducing the jury verdicts after application of the cap on non-
economic damages, bankruptcy settlement payments and joint
tortfeasor credit for cross claims against another defendant.

Decedent Levester James worked as a laborer at the Baltimore-based
copper refinery American Smelting and Refining Company's tank room
from 1968 to 1972. He died from lung cancer in July 2004.

The jury awarded him and his family $2,035,684.71. The final
judgment was reduced to $980,209.89.

Decedent Mayso A. Lawrence, Sr., worked as a laborer at the
American Smelting and Refining Company and in Bethlehem Steel's
68-inch hot strip mill at Sparrows Point. He died from lung cancer
in October 2007.

The jury awarded him and his family $2,930,532.09. The final
judgment was reduced to $782,621.24.

Decedent Rufus E. Carter worked as a laborer and crane operator at
the American Smelting and Refining Company from 1966 to 1975. He
died from lung cancer in November 2003.

The jury awarded him and his family $2,017,302.50. The final
judgment was reduced to $976,203.41.

Decedent Roger C. Hewitt, Sr. worked as a laborer, mechanic
steamfitter and pipefitter at the Pennsylvania Railroad from 1943
to 1944, and as a laborer and crane operator at Bethlehem Steel
from 1946 to 1978.

Hewitt was also a long-time smoker. According to the opinion, he
smoked a half-pack to a full pack of cigarettes every day for 65
years.  He died from lung cancer in December 2008.

During trial, Wallace & Gale expert Dr. Gerald R. Kerby testified
that Hewitt's tobacco use is roughly 75 percent at fault for
causing the decedent's lung cancer, while his asbestos exposure is
roughly 25 percent at fault.

However, the trial court did not allow the jury to apportion
damages, saying it would be an unscientific, wild guess.

"If the court of appeals wants to send us down that path to
another swamp, I suppose we could do that," the trial court
concluded. "It's an interesting issue. Technologically, it's
interesting. But we don't have any basis for drawing an
intelligent conclusion regarding what we're going to plug into the
matrix. So no, we're not doing that."

As a result, the jury awarded Hewitt and his family $2,686,686.07.
The final judgment was reduced to $1,325,495.95.

Wallace & Gale appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which
then sent it to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

In regards to the apportionment issue, the lower appeals court
held that the trial court erroneously refused to allow Kerby's
testimony and jury instructions on apportionment. The high court
disagreed, saying the lower court improperly relied on New Jersey
case law rather than Maryland law.

Greene explained that apportionment of damages is only appropriate
when the injury is "reasonably divisible" and when there are two
or more causes of injury.

"Where an injury is reasonably -- or theoretically -- divisible,
the burden of proof would shift to the defendant to prove that
apportionment of damages is appropriate," Greene wrote.

However, the court concluded that Hewitt's injury is not
reasonably divisible.

"While there are many variables that go into the causal effects of
tobacco and asbestos exposure," Greene wrote, "there is evidence
that the effect is multiplicative in nature, which we are
satisfied is indicative of an indivisible injury."

Greene explained that under a comparative negligence system, "a
plaintiff's contributory negligence does not bar recovery, but
rather reduces proportionately his or her damages in relation to
his or her degree of fault."

He added that apportioning damages to the plaintiff's smoking
history is equivalent to holding Hewitt accountable.

The court concluded that the trial court properly excluded Kerby's
testimony and rejected apportionment of damages.

Raker dissented, saying the Court of Special Appeals made the
correct decision when it ruled that apportionment concerns
causation rather than comparative negligence principles.

"In my view," Raker wrote, "a categorical rule that death is an
indivisible injury incapable of apportionment speeds past an
accepted principle of law: death can be capable of apportionment
as to damages, but not as to fault."

Furthermore, Raker argued that the majority improperly relied
solely on the plaintiffs' experts at trial to support its
conclusion against apportionment when it excluded Kerby's
testimony.

As a result, Raker suggests remanding the case so a hearing could
be held to determine if Kerby's opinion met the standards for
scientific testimony before it was accepted or rejected.

"Doing so would have permitted the court to make an informed
decision as to whether there was a reasonable basis for
apportioning the injury," Raker wrote. "The majority's per se rule
prevents a trial court from evaluating the merit of emerging
scientific theories of causation."

In regards to the "use plaintiffs" argument, the trial court held
that "there is no question that use plaintiffs have to be
included. They're supposed to be included. They're necessary
parties."

"Use plaintiffs" in this case refer to the decedents' families.
They are not considered typical plaintiffs because they never
formally joined the action.

Regardless, this court agreed with the trial court that the "use
plaintiffs" are still able to recover damages.

Greene explained that Maryland law does not require a formal
joinder by the designated use plaintiffs in a wrongful death
action.

"Absent any clear direction or requirement that formal joinder was
necessary, on the facts of this case, the use plaintiffs' knowing
consent to the litigation brought on their behalf and active
participation in the litigation was the functional equivalent of
joinder," he wrote.

Greene added that according to Maryland law at the time of trial,
the use plaintiffs were real parties in interest and were not
required to formally join in order to share in an award,
especially because they were listed as plaintiffs in several of
the filings, they were deposed, testified at trial and were
subject to cross examination.

"It's obvious that everyone involved, including Respondent's
counsel, considered the use plaintiffs to be parties to the
litigation," Greene concluded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied as moot
all pending motions to dismiss the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit styled BIRLIE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BOEING AEROSPACE
OPERATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV1200 CDP
(E.D. Mo.), after finding that the plaintiff's complaint
adequately states claims against the defendants seeking dismissal.
A full-text copy of Judge Perry's Decision dated July 22, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/kHaKT9from Leagle.com.

Birlie Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle,
Esq. -- ben@swmklaw.com -- Matthew C. Morris, Esq. --
matt@swmklaw.com -- and Stephanie L. Gold, Esq. --
lauren@swmklaw.com -- SWMK LAW.

Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

BP Amoco Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lizabeth M. Conran, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Brand Insulations Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

BTL Specialty Resins Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM,Rebecca A.
Nickleson, HEPLER BROOM & Alex Belotserkovsky, HEPLER BROOM.

BTLSR Toledo Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM, Rebecca A. Nickleson,
HEPLER BROOM & Alex Belotserkovsky, HEPLER BROOM.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Brett M. Mares, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner,
HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Gregory T. Goldberg, Esq. -- ggoldberg@stamostrucco.com -- at
STAMOS & TRUCCO LLP.

Cooper Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Amy K. Shasserre, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Joshua N.
Worthington, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Eastman Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita
Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Exxon Mobil Chemical Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David F. Fanning, Esq. -- fanningd@jbltd.com -- and
H. Patrick Morris, Esq. -- morrisp@jbltd.com -- at JOHNSON AND
BELL.

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita
Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

General Gasket Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Clayton E. Dickey, Esq. -- cdickey@rwdmlaw.com -- at RASMUSSEN
AND WILLIS.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM, Rebecca A. Nickleson,
HEPLER BROOM & Alex Belotserkovsky, HEPLER BROOM.

Hercules, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita Maria Kidd,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
& Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM,Rebecca A.
Nickleson, HEPLER BROOM & Alex Belotserkovsky, HEPLER BROOM.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM, Rebecca A. Nickleson,
HEPLER BROOM & Alex Belotserkovsky, HEPLER BROOM.

KCG, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page, VOGLER LAW
FIRM, P.C..

Mendenhall Rebuilders, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kurtis B. Reeg, Esq. -- kreeg@reeglawyers.com -- at REEG
LAWYERS, LLC.

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Alexa L. Newton, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.
& Joshua N. Worthington, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Ross S. Titzer, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC & Thomas
L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Reichhold, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP, John L. Wright,
HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Reno R. Cova, III, HAWKINS AND PARNELL,
LLP.

Rogers Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Marcie J. Vantine, Esq. -- mvantine@kernell-law.com
-- Thomas J. Kernell, Esq. -- tkernell@kernell-law.com -- and
Megan J. Bricker, Esq. -- mbricker@kernell-law.com -- at KERNELL
LAW KIRM, PC.

The Boeing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM, Rebecca A. Nickleson,
HEPLER BROOM & Alex Belotserkovsky, HEPLER BROOM.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP, Gary L. Smith,
HERZOG CREBS LLP & Tracy Beckman Phipps, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brady Sherrod
Edwards.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant, represented
by James R. Williams, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Obtains Partial Dismissal of PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a
memorandum opinion and order dated July 14, 2014, granted
defendant Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss Count III of the complaint
in the asbestos-related personal injury styled KENNETH D. SMITH,
JR. and DIANE SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. CRANE CO., et al., Defendants,
NO. 13 C 7411 (N.D. Ill.).  Count III alleges that Diane suffered
loss of consortium due to Kenneth's development of mesothelioma,
caused by the defendants' negligent use of asbestos in products
used by Kenneth during his employment.  A full-text copy of Judge
Gettleman's Decision is available at http://is.gd/HTm3e1from
Leagle.com.

Kenneth D Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Katharine Crane Byrne,
Cooney & Conway, Robert John Cooney, Jr., Cooney & Conway, Timothy
G. Martin, Cooney & Conway & William Robert Fahey, Cooney &
Conway.

Air & Liquid Systems Corp, Plaintiff, represented by Tobin J
Taylor, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C. & Heidi E Ruckman,
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

American Biltrite Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Adam J Jagadich, Segal, McCambridge, Singer & Mahoney & Mark
Coad Sampson, Jr., Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

Anderson Greenwood & Co, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Armstrong International Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jacob D. Sawyer, Foley & Mansfield, Pllp.

Aurora Pump Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel Michael Finer, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd.
C B S Corp, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jacob D.
Sawyer, Foley & Mansfield, Pllp.

Certainteed Corp, Cross Defendant, represented by Tobin J Taylor,
Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C.,Brad Keller, Heyl Royster
Voelker & Allen & Heidi E Ruckman, Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Catherine
Lynn Carlson, Gunty and McCarthy, James Paul Kasper, Gunty &
McCarthy Law Offices & Jeffery Scott Meyer, Esq. -- jsm@murane.com
-- at Murane & Bostwick Llc.

Dap Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Madeline
Victoria Tzall, Segal Mccambridge Singer Mahoney.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, Segal McCambridge Singer &
Mahoney, Ltd. & Daniel Michael Finer, Segal McCambridge Singer &
Mahoney Ltd.

H B Fueller Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C., Brad
Keller, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, Heidi E Ruckman, Heyl,
Royster, Voelker & Allen, James V. Tomaska, Johnson & Bell Ltd.
& Jeffery George Chrones, Johnson & Bell, Ltd..

IMO Industries Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C., Brad
Keller, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen & Heidi E Ruckman, Heyl,
Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Ingersoll Rand Corp, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael Thomas Antikainen, HeplerBroom, LLC & Scott H. Koontz,
HeplerBroom LLC.

John Crane Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented by Sean
Patrick Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burn LLC & Caroline
Linder Olson, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, LLC.

Kaiser Gypsum Co Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Gregory T Henry, Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore LLC.

Mueller Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jacob D. Sawyer, Foley & Mansfield, Pllp.

Riley Power Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C., Brad
Keller, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen & Heidi E Ruckman, Heyl,
Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Union Carbide Corp, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C., Brad
Keller, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen & Heidi E Ruckman, Heyl,
Royster, Voelker & Allen.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Tobin J Taylor, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen, P.C., Brad
Keller, Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen & Heidi E Ruckman, Heyl,
Royster, Voelker & Allen.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded in Colo. Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado issued an order dated July 23, 2014,
granting the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants
in a case arising out of an incident in which the plaintiffs,
inmates at the Colorado Department of Corrections, were exposed to
low concentrations of asbestos.

The case is JAMES TEMPLETON, DAVID COWDEN, ROBERT GALLOB, DAVID
ALLEN, Plaintiffs, v. PETER ANDERSON, JEFF SMITH, JAMES CHANEY,
TIMOTHY CREANY, JAN SYLVIA, STEVEN GALLEGOS, CHERI DRENNON,
STEPHEN ENGLE, THOMAS MARTIN, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-
01276-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo.).  A full-text copy of Judge Jackson's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/1I1pB5from Leagle.com.

James Templeton, David Allen, David Cowden, and Robert Gallob,
Plaintiffs, Pro Se.

Peter Anderson, Jeff Smith, James Chaney, Timothy Creany, Doctor,
Jan Sylvia, Steven Gallegos, Cheri Drennon, Stephen Engle, and
Thomas Martin, Defendants, represented by Christopher Wayne Alber,
Colorado Attorney General's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Refuses to Allow Trial in CERCLA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government filed a civil action pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act regarding the Michelin Powerhouse Superfund Site and the
Michelin Building 3 Vat Site, in New Jersey.  The Government
alleges that hazardous substances, such as friable asbestos,
arsenic, lead and mercury, were release or were threatened to be
released at the Powerhouse.  The Environmental Protection Agency
notified defendant Alsol Corporation of its potential liability
for the removal action at the Powerhouse site and by May 2007,
Alsol had partially completed the removal action, but the EPA has
since been forced to incur more than $3 million in costs to
continue the removal of the hazardous substances at the Powerhouse
site.  The Government therefore seeks recovery against the
defendants for response costs.  The defendants answered the
Government's complaint denying the allegations and "requested a
trial by jury on all issues so triable."

Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted the Government's motion to
strike, holding that the circuit has made clear that CERCLA
actions brought to recover costs incurred in the cleanup of, or to
prevent the release of, hazardous substances, sounds in equity and
a jury trial is therefore unavailable.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALSOL
CORPORATION, SB BUILDING ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SB
BUILDING GP, L.L.C., UNITED STATES LAND RESOURCES, L.P., UNITED
STATES REALTY RESOURCES, INC., LAWRENCE S. BERGER, and 3.60 ACRES
OF LAND, More or Less, located at Block 58, Lot 1.01, at 2 through
130 Ford Avenue in Milltown, Middlesex County, New Jersey,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-0380 (KSH)(CLW)(D.N.J.).  A
full-text copy of the magistrate judge's opinion dated July 10,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/C5Yiy9from Leagle.com.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, represented by ALLAN B.K.
URGENT, OFFICE OF THE US ATTORNEY, BRADFORD THOMAS MCLANE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BRADLEY LIGHT LEVINE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE & STEVEN ANDREW KELLER, US DEPT OF JUSTICE.

ALSOL CORPORATION, SB BUILDING ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SB
BUILDING GP, L.L.C., UNITED STATES LAND RESOURCES, L.P., UNITED
STATES REALTY RESOURCES, INC., LAWRENCE S. BERGER, and 3.60 ACRES
OF LAND, Defendant, represented by GREGORY JAMES CANNON, BERGER &
BORNSTEIN PA & WILLIAM J. PINILIS, Esq. --
wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- at PINILIS HALPERN.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Bid to Junk "Bailen" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company moved to dismiss an
asbestos-related personal injury complaint against it for lack of
personal jurisdiction on the grounds that it had no continuous and
systematic contacts with New York, did not transact business in
New York, did not commit a tortious act in New York, did not
commit a tortious act outside of New York causing injury in New
York, and did not have sufficient minimum contacts with New York
to satisfy due process.  By order dated April 1, 2013, the Supreme
Court, New York County, denied Union Pacific's motion, holding
that it consented to jurisdiction in New York by its voluntary
authorization to do business in the state and its designation of
New York agents for service of process.  Union Pacific now moves
for leave to renew its dismissal motion.

In a decision and order dated Aug. 5, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York, granted Union Pacific's
motion for leave to renew, and upon the renewal the court adheres
to its original determination.  Judge Heitler said a New York
court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over a
corporation, regardless of whether it is "at home" in New York, so
long as it is registered to do business here as a foreign
corporation and designates a local agent for service of process.

The case is EDDIE HOWARD BAILEN and RENA NORENE ASH BAILEN,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as Successor by
Merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190318/12, MOTION SEQ. 015 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/7hLpyPfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Remands Ruling in "Black" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Appellant, CSX Transportation, Inc., a Virginia corporation,
appeals from the order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of
Common Pleas in favor of Appellee, Paul R. Black, a Kentucky
resident allegedly exposed to asbestos in Kentucky.  The order
denied Appellant's motion to dismiss Appellee's Federal Employers'
Liability Act action on the basis of interstate forum non
conveniens.  CSX filed an interlocutory appeal by permission.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated and remanded to have
the trial court address all of the relevant factors for interstate
forum non conveniens, after determining that the because the trial
court did not weigh all the pertinent factors, including the
Appellee's foreign status, the trial court did not properly
exercise its discretion.

The case is PAUL R. BLACK v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant,
NO. 3058 EDA 2012 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania).  A full-text
copy of the Superior Court's decision dated Aug. 12, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/UL7T7Qfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Davis" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware issued a report and recommendation
dated Aug. 11, 2014, recommending that the District Court order
that the motion to dismiss the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit styled HARRY A. DAVIS and MADONNA S. DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v.
ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-
1185-SLR-CJB (D.Del.), be granted and that the matter be dismissed
with prejudice, as to all Defendants.  The magistrate judge issued
the report and recommendation following the Plaintiffs' failure to
amend its complaint, despite being given further extension, and
failure to file a response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation is available at http://is.gd/PuRMSrfrom
Leagle.com.

Harry A. Davis, and Madonna S. Davis, Plaintiffs, represented
by Diane M. Coffey, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates LLP.

Ace Hardware Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Paul D. Sunshine, McGivney & Kluger,
P.C..

Advance Auto Parts Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Peter John Faben, Wilbraham Lawler &
Buba.

AGCO Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman
& Goggin, Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin & Sarah Anne Roberts, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin.

American Honda Motor Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, White & Williams.

Autozone Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Peter
S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Boeing Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP, Bryan Patrick Smith, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A.
Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jennifer Danella Oliva,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Melissa L. Troutner, Manion Gaynor &
Manning LLP, Nathan David Barillo, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP
& William Bruce Larson, Jr., Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP.

BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc., formerly known as Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented byMatthew
P. Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman
& Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman
& Goggin.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant and Counter
Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.
CNH America LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Brian Tome, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC,Matthew P.
Donelson, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Peter S. Murphy,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Columbia Boiler Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien,
Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

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

Cummins Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.
Dana Companies LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Domco Products LLP, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Willard F. Preston, III, Goldfein &
Joseph.

Domco Products Texas Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Willard F. Preston, III, Goldfein & Joseph
&Bernadette M. Plaza, Goldfein & Joseph.

Eaton Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to
Cutler-Hammer, Defendant, Counter Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Cross Defendant, represented byNicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell
LLC & Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
and Counter Defendant, represented by Christian J. Singewald,
White & Williams.

General Electric Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
and Counter Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz
Campbell LLC.

General Parts Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
and Counter Defendant, represented by Donald E. Reid, Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley &
Anderson LLC & Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson
LLC.

Georgia Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Defendant,
represented by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP, Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Matthew
Robert Pierce, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Peter John Faben,
Wilbraham Lawler & Buba & Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Manion
Gaynor & Manning LLP.

Great Dane Limited Partnership, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham
Lawler & Buba.

H.B. Fuller Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joel M. Doner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as AlliedSignal Inc.
formerly known as Bendix Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Counter Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Joelle
Florax, Rawle & Henderson LLP.

John Deere Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Kevin A. Guerke, Seitz, Van Ogtrop &
Green, P.A..

Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Sarah Anne Roberts, Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Kohler Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Defendant,
represented by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning
LLP, Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Matthew
Robert Pierce, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Peter John Faben,
Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della
Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Jessica
Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Sarah
Anne Roberts, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Ana
Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.
Massey Ferguson Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler &
Buba.

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

National Automotive Parts Association, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
and Counter Defendant, represented by Paul A. Bradley, Maron
Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Stephanie Ann Fox, Maron Marvel
Bradley & Anderson LLC.

New Holland North America Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by R. Stokes Nolte, Reilly Janiczek
& McDevitt PC, Stephanie S. Levitsky, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt
PC & Mary Kathryn Hodges Harmon, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC.
Paccar Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Defendant,
represented by Somers S. Price, Jr., Potter Anderson & Corroon,
LLP, Daniel F. Wolcott, Jr., Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
& James M. Kron, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP.

Peerless Industries, doing business as Peerless Heater Company,
Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by C. Scott Reese, Cooch & Taylor
& Christopher H. Lee, Cooch & Taylor.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Parshall, Murphy,
Spadaro & Landon.

Robert Bosch LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by David G. Culley, Tybout, Redfearn &
Pell.

Superior Boiler Works Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks,
O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Eileen M. Ford, Marks,
O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C..

Trane US Inc., formerly known as American Standard Inc., Defendant
and Cross Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr.,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi,
Swartz Campbell LLC.

United Technologies Corporation, formerly known as Pratt &
Whitney, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Defendant,
represented by Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson
LLC & Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC.
Whitney Automotive Group Inc., formerly known as J.C.C. Whitney &
Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented byNicholas E.
Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC.

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Peter S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Dismiss "Grande" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, in an order dated Aug. 18, 2014,
denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Crane Co., the
sole remaining defendant in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit lawsuit styled LISA GRANDE, individually and as successor-
in-interest to THE ESTATE OF GERALD BRANTLEY, Deceased, Plaintiff,
v. BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
12CV540-GPC(JMA)(S.D. Calif.), after finding that the Plaintiff
proferred evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of material
fact as to whether decedent Gerald Brantley was exposed to
asbestos-containing products made by Crane Co.

A full-text copy of Judge Curiel's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/QKzMv5from Leagle.com.

Lisa Grande, Plaintiff, represented by Keenan W. Ng, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik, Lance Randall Stewart, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik
& William Y. Sung, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik & Associates, LLP.
Borg-Warner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven M
Mitchel, Booth Mitchel and Strange.

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley
William Gunning, K & L Gates LLP.
Manny Moe and Jack of California, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer J. Lee, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, LLP.

Gardner Denver Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly Ann
Sze, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP & Charles
Jenkins, Law Offices of Charles W Jenkins.

Genuine Parts Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Howard D.
Ruddell, Pond North LLP & Russell R. Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP.
Yarway Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Meghan
Phillips, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Plaintiffs Directed to File Status Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a
memorandum and order dated Aug. 12, 2014, directing the plaintiffs
in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled JAMES
HARRELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING CO., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV479 CDP (E.D. Mo.), to file a status
report, which sets out the progress of the case, the nature and
extent of any discovery conducted in state court, and what, if
any, additional discovery is required before the case is referred
to mediation.  A full-text copy of Judge Perry's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/xJJbcBfrom Leagle.com.

James Harrell and Edna Harrell, Plaintiffs, represented by Sean
Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN.

Boeing Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William
R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Brian M. Wacker, HERZOG CREBS LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J.
Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Edna Harrell, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean Patrick Barth,
NAPOLI AND BERN.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP,Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant, represented
by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

James Harrell, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean Patrick Barth,
NAPOLI AND BERN.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER,
P.C..

Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Robert F. Chandler, BAKER AND STERCHI,
LLC.

Trane U.S., Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.
United Technologies Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Timothy A. Graham, Sr., HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Young Group Ltd., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in NY PI Suit Withdrawn
-----------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, issued an order on Aug. 14, 2014, withdrawing an
appeal in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to CULLENS, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS -- KOHLER CO., and v. BELL FUEL OIL, LLC -- MVC HEATING
CORPORATION, MOTION NO. M-1605 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy
of the Order is available at http://is.gd/GMVXo9from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks' Bid to Junk NY PI Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled ANGEL LAMBERTY and
CARMEN LAMBERTY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS Co., et
al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 100988/04, MOT. SEQ. 004 (N.Y. Sup.),
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint and all other claims asserted
against it on the ground that the plaintiffs have not shown that
any product manufactured, sold, installed, or supplied by Cleaver-
Brooks contributed to decedent Angel Lamberty's asbestos exposure.
Judge Heitler ruled that the records at most create a triable
issue of fact in light of the especially precise and unambiguous
testimony of John P. Ewanciw, a co-worker of Mr. Lamberty,
regarding the presence of Cleaver-Brooks boilers at Otisville
Correctional Facility where Mr. Lamberty was employed as a power
plant worker.  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision and
Order dated Aug. 8, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/0g976kfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plant Insulation, Insurers Stipulate on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, approved a
stipulation among certain insurers, Plant Insulation Company, the
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in Plant
Insulation's Chapter 11 case, and the court-appointed
representative of future asbestos claims.

The Insurers have advised Plant Insulation, the Committee and the
FCR that they will seek a stay of the implementation of Judge
Seeborg's order affirming the confirmation of Plant Insulation's
Plan of Reorganization.  The Plan Proponents said they would
oppose the stay.  As an alternative to proceeding with a motion
for a stay, the parties agreed that the Plan Proponents will not
file a motion to dismiss the Insurers' Appeal based on mootness of
any kind, as long as the Insurers agree to join in requesting that
the U.S. Circuit Court for the Ninth Circuit expedite the hearing
of the Appeal and in seeking a briefing schedule in the Ninth
Circuit that is concluded as quickly as the schedule set for the
Insurers' prior appeal to the same circuit court.

The case is In re PLANT INSULATION CO., Chapter 11, Debtor, BANKR.
CASE NO. 3:09-BK-31347 TEC, relating to ONEBEACON INSURANCE CO.,
et al., Appellants, v. PLANT INSULATION CO., et al., Appellees,
NO. 3:14-CV-01200-RS (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Seeborg's Order dated Aug. 20, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/HnIY7zfrom Leagle.com.

Anna Shiran, DENTONS US LLP, San Francisco, CA, Philip A.
O'Connell Jr., DENTONS US LLP, Boston, MA, Robert B. Millner (Pro
Hac Vice), DENTONS US LLP, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for ONEBEACON
INSURANCE COMPANY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Modifies Order in "Lovelace" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Third District, Sacramento,
issued on Aug. 22, 2014, an order modifying the opinion it
rendered on July 25, 2014, in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit styled MICHAEL LOVELACE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Defendant and Appellant, NO. C072371 (Cal. App.),
and denied

The order modified footnote 4 on page 12 of the July 25 opinion to
reflect the following language:

"Our conclusion the testimony provided by James and his expert
witnesses constitutes sufficient evidence to support the judgment
obviates the need to consider James's contention the evidence can
also be found sufficient based on Abex's participation in the
Saranac agreement. As to Abex's claim that James's counsel
committed misconduct during closing arguments before the jury, we
deem the issue forfeited for failure to cite any legal authority
on the issue of misconduct. "When a point is asserted without
argument and authority for the proposition, 'it is deemed to be
without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing
court.'" (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408, quoting
Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647.)
Accordingly, we pass on the issue without discussion."

A full-text copy of the Order is available at http://is.gd/lROvHC
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Partially Flips Ruling in CFA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Rebecca and Joshua Teplow filed a complaint against
Prino Environmental Consulting Services, Inc., and its principal,
Barrington Smith, and E.A. Services Corporation, and its
principal, Gesier Fajardo.  The Plaintiffs alleged that they hired
Prino to remove asbestos in the basement of their home, and Prino
in turn retained E.A. to actually do the work.  Among other
claims, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negligent,
breached the Asbestos Control and Licensing Act, violated the
Consumer Fraud Act, and breached express and implied warranties
and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  Rebecca Teplow
alleged personal injuries as a result of the defendants'
negligence.

In an opinion dated Aug. 15, 2014, the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed in part and reversed in part
a lower court's decision granting the defendants summary judgment
and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.  The Superior Court
found that, in this case, the plaintiffs offered no excuse for
failing to furnish certain documents earlier, and never, even
belatedly, set forth circumstances that would have met the
prerequisites of Rule 4:17-7.  Additionally, the Superior Court
found that, as a practical matter, in order for the defendants to
sort out the relevancy of over one hundred pages of receipts, they
would have been forced to seek an extension of discovery
themselves under the enhanced "exceptional circumstances" standard
of Rule 4:24-1(c), since a trial date had already been set.  That
result, occasioned solely by the plaintiffs' dilatory tactics, is
entirely unfair, the Superior Court said.

The Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
complaint, with the exception of their claims for negligence and
violation of the CFA, and reversed the grant of summary judgment
as to those specific causes of action.

The case is REBECCA TEPLOW and JOSHUA TEPLOW, HER HUSBAND AND
CHILDREN JOSEF TEPLOW, AVERY TEPLOW AND TAMARA TEPLOW, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. PRINO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., E.A
SERVICES CORPORATION, GEISER FAJARDO and BARRINGTON SMITH,
Defendants-Respondents, NO. A-3637-12T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).
A full-text copy of the Court's decision is available at
http://is.gd/Rv8wiZfrom Leagle.com.

Lesnevich & Marzano-Lesnevich, L.L.C., attorneys for appellants
(Benjamin Levine, on the brief).

O'Toole, Fernandez, Weiner, Van Lieu, attorneys for respondents
(Arthur G. Lash, on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon Appeal in Powell Coverage Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-appellant OneBeacon Insurance Company appeals the
decision of the trial court granting partial summary judgment in
favor of plaintiff-appellee The William Powell Company in the
lawsuit where Powell, a manufacturer of industrial valves some of
which may have included one or more components of asbestos, sought
a declaratory judgment of its rights under the policies issued by
OneBeacon's predecessor.  Powell has been involved in asbestos
litigation all over the country for a number of years.  Between
1960 and 1977, Powell carried liability insurance under a series
of primary and excess policies issued by OneBeacon's predecessor.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County, in
an opinion dated Aug. 15, 2014, dismissed the appeal saying it
cannot reach the merits of OneBeacon's two assignments of error,
because it has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.  The Court of
Appeals found that the trial court's decision is is not a final,
appealable order under R.C. 2505.02, and the Court of Appeals does
not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The case is THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and FEDERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Intervenor, APPEAL NO. C-130681 (Ohio
App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/w0n5xGfrom Leagle.com.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour, and Pease LLP, Daniel J. Buckley, Robert C.
Mitchell, and Joseph M. Brunner, for Plaintiff-Appellee.  Davis &
Young and Richard M. Garner, for Defendant-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Wood" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Crane Company, one of many defendants in the asbestos litigation
commenced by Kathleen R. Wood, as personal representative for the
estate of James E. Joyner, removed the case to federal court,
asserting a federal defense to Mr. Joyner's state tort claims.
When Joyner amended his complaint, eliminating the claims
underlying that federal defense, the district court remanded to
state court.  Crane now complains that it should have been given
the opportunity to assert a new basis for federal jurisdiction --
even though it had declined to do so in a timely fashion.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in an
opinion dated Aug. 15, 2014, affirmed the district court's
decision to remand, holding that in a litigation system that
typically operates on a raise-or-waive model, the Fourth Circuit
said it was unable to discern why Crane's strategic decision not
to assert removal as to the gasket claim would merit a departure
from the general rule.

The case is KATHLEEN R. WOOD, Personal Representative for the
Estate of James E. Joyner, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRANE CO.,
individually and as successor to National-U.S. Radiator, is a
Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in
Connecticut, Defendant-Appellant, and A.C. & R INSULATION CO.,
INC.; ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY, INC.; ALLIS-CHALMERS ENERGY, INC.;
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Successor by Merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc.; A.O. SMITH CORPORATION; ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; AQUA-CHEM, INC., d/b/a Clever-Brooks Division; AURORA PUMP,
CO; A.W. CHESTERTON, INC.; BW/IP, INC., and its wholly owned
subsidiaries as successor-in-interest to BW/IP; CARRIER CORP.; CBS
CORPORATION, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., as successor to Westinghouse
Electric Corp.; CERTAINEED CORPORATION; CLEAVER-BROOKS COMPANY;
COLUMBIA BOILER COMPANY; CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC.; EATON
ELECTRICAL, INC., f/k/a Cutler Hammer, Inc.; ELLIOTT COMPANY I,
f/k/a Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc.; FMC CORPORATION,
individually, on behalf of its Former Construction Equipment Group
& Former Peerless Pump Division; FOSTER-WHEELER LLC; FOSTER
WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, f/k/a Foster Wheeler Corporation;
GARDNER DENVER, INC.; GARDNER DENVER NASH, LLC, a/k/a Gardner
Denver, Inc., f/k/a Nash Elmo Industries, LLC; GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Durabla
Manufacturing; GOULDS PUMPS, INC., a subsidiary of ITT Industries,
Inc.; THE GRISCOM-RUSSELL COMPANY, f/k/a The Dial Corporation, a
Delaware Corporation; H.B. FULLER COMPANY, Successor/or parent of
Benjamin Foster Division of Amchem Products, Inc.; H.B. SMITH
COMPANY, INC., a/k/a Smith Cast Iron Boilers; HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; IMO INDUSTRIES,
INCORPORATED, individually and on behalf of and successor to
DeLaval; DeLaval Stream Turbine Co., IMO DeLaval and Warren Pump
Co.; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, INC.;
JOHN CRANE, INC.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; MCNALLY INDUSTRIES,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Northern Pump
Company and Northern Fire Apparatus Company; MCIC, INC., f/k/a
McCormick Asbestos Co.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.; NATIONAL
SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a North Brothers, Inc.; OWENS-
ILLINOIS, INC.; RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION; RILEY POWER, INC.,
f/k/a Babcock Borsig, Inc., f/k/a Riley Stoker Corporation; SB
DECKING, INC., f/k/a Selby, Battersby & Company; SEALING EQUIPMENT
PRODUCTS CO. INC.; SIEMANS DEMAG DELAVAL TURBOMACHINERY, INC.,
f/k/a Demag Delaval Turbomachinery, Inc.; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA,
INC., f/k/a Square D Company; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNIROYAL,
INCORPORATED; VALEN VALVE CORPORATION; WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS
SETTLEMENT TRUST; THE WALTER E. CAMPBELL COMPANY, INC.; WARREN
PUMPS, LLC, f/k/a Warren Pumps, Incorporated; WEIL PUMP COMPANY
INC.; WEIL-MCLAIN, INC.; YARWAY CORPORATION; ROCKWELL AUTOMATION,
INC., successor-in-interest to Allen-Bradley Co., Defendants, NO.
13-1868 (4th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/laz4c7from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Michael James Ross, K&L GATES LLP, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, for Appellant.

Jacqueline Gagne Badders, RUCKDESCHEL LAW FIRM, LLC, Ellicott
City, Maryland, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Nicholas P. Vari, Syed D. Ali, K&L GATES LLP,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Neil J. MacDonald, MACDONALD LAW GROUP,
LLC, Beltsville, Maryland, for Appellant.

Jonathan Ruckdeschel, Z. Stephen Horvat, RUCKDESCHEL LAW FIRM,
LLC, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 19 Cos. Dismissed as Defendants in Ill. PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, issued an order dated
Aug. 15, 2014, granting a plaintiff's motion to dismiss as
defendants from an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit
Advanced Composites Group, Asbestos Corp Ltd., Avocet Enterprises,
Chicago Gasket Co., Cooper Indust., LLC, Cytec Indust. Inc., Duro
Dyne Corp., Goodyear Canada Inc., Harper Int'l, J.H. France
Refractories Co., Kelly More Paint Co., Nibco Inc., Resco Holdings
LLC, Rogers Corp., Sears Roebuck & Co., Sprinkmann Sons Corp.,
Swindell Dressler Int'l Co., The Coleman Co., and Treco
Construction Services.

The case is HELEN PEARL SHEWMAKE, individually and as special
administrator for the Estate of ELIC DAVID SHEWMAKE, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, et. al., CASE NO. 13-CV-1223-
SCW-PMF (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the Order is available
at http://is.gd/dbMIf5from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lake Macquarie Fibro Policy Slated
---------------------------------------------------
David Stewart, writing for Lakes Mail, reported that Lake
Macquarie City Council in July said it is keenly awaiting the
results of a trial scheme in other council areas that waives the
waste levy on asbestos and reduces tip fees.  Such a scheme could,
in theory at least, help to reduce the incidence of illegal
dumping of asbestos around the city.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority has committed $3 million
to trialling the Householders' Asbestos Disposal Scheme in
selected council areas for 12 months.

To offset the collection and transport costs for small residential
amounts of asbestos waste, the trial includes an EPA contribution
of $50 per tonne towards the safe disposal of asbestos waste.

The aim of the trial is to minimise the financial burden on
householders who want to do the right thing with their asbestos
waste.  Thirteen expressions of interest, representing 36 councils
and organisations, were submitted to the EPA.

Lake Macquarie City Council did not apply to be part of the pilot
program.

Lakes Mail readers have been critical of the council for failing
to get on board, particularly given the council's green
credentials, and the asbestos dumping problem in the area.

Reader Christine Holloway-Stoeski summed up their views when she
wrote: "Really disappointing; there is no incentive from council."

Other readers have phoned the Lakes Mail to question the council's
approach to stopping asbestos dumping.

But a council spokesperson said it would closely assess the trial
results and consider implementing a scheme locally.

"Council continues to work with the EPA on asbestos dumping in the
city," the spokesperson said.

"Over the last 12 months, approximately 400 tonnes of dumped
asbestos waste has been cleaned up, with funding provided by the
NSW government's Illegally Dumped Asbestos Clean Up Program."

Bushland at Wyee and Morisset has been an unhappy dumping ground
for discarded asbestos in recent months.

In Lake Macquarie, it costs about $350 per tonne to dispose of
asbestos legally.

Critics say the fees are too high and are a deterrent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colorado AG Fines Firms for Mishandling Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & Demolition reported that Colorado Attorney General
John Suthers announced in July that Tri State Environmental Group
and Aftermath Cleanup & Remediation Services LLC will pay fines
totaling $1 million for failing to properly dispose of asbestos-
containing waste material (ACWM). The fine will be split evenly
between the two asbestos abatement disposal companies.

The owner of the two companies, James Joseph Duran, and the
companies themselves were sentenced after all three pled guilty to
the crime of Causing and Contributing to a Hazardous Substance
Incident, which is a felony under Colorado law.

The Attorney General's office says that an Arapahoe District Court
judge sentenced Duran and the two companies for criminal behavior
that also violated Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment's regulations regarding illegal storage of ACWM. The
Environmental Crimes Unit of the Attorney General's Office
partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal
Investigation Division and the CDPHE to investigate and prosecute
the case.

"We take our obligation to protect Colorado's environment
seriously and are pleased when we secure convictions against those
who harm it," says Attorney General Suthers. "This conviction
serves as a reminder that you cannot abandon asbestos in dumpsters
and anyone doing so needs to be reported for committing a public
health crime."

According to the Attorney General's office, starting in 2009,
Duran began abandoning ACWM without following the proper safety
procedures, which caused a series of hazardous substance
incidents.

The AG's office also notes that Duran and the two companies
knowingly violated emissions regulations of the Colorado Air
Quality Control Commission. Finally, Duran, Aftermath and Tri
State knowingly concealed violations from law enforcement and
CDPHE officials.

"Unsafe disposal of asbestos endangers human health," says Jeffery
Martinez, Special Agent in Charge of EPA's Criminal Investigation
Division in Colorado. "This sentence is some measure of justice
for the communities, businesses and individuals impacted by the
defendant's conduct. When businesses break the law, the EPA and
its partners will step in to protect the health and welfare of the
American people."

James Duran pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 500 hours of
community service and six years of probation. He was also ordered
to pay $2,538 in restitution. Both Aftermath Cleanup & Remediation
Services and Tri State Environmental Group pleaded guilty and were
each sentenced to a $500,000 fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lamesa School Board Approved Abatement Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russel Skiles, writing for PressReporter.com, reported that school
officials in Lamesa, Texas, took action to help get the second
phase of the high school renovation project underway.

During a brief special meeting lasting less than 20 minutes, the
board accepted a bid of $42,441 for removal of asbestos in the
areas of the school that are involved in the Phase 2 renovation.

Submitted by Advanced Environmental Services of Odessa, the bid
was the lowest of three received for the work.

With a wide variance in the three bids -- Vanco U Insulation
submitted a price of $68,315 and Asbestos Removal Inc. bid $87,279
-- Superintendent John Ramos said he checked the references on all
three companies.

"There was nothing negative about all three of them," Ramos said.
"They all do good work."

Ramos said the asbestos abatement work will include the removal of
some old chalkboards that apparently contain asbestos, which has
been linked to lung cancer.

"I didn't know chalkboards contained asbestos," Ramos told the
board.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Insulation to Be Removed From School
-----------------------------------------------------------
Will Brumleve, writing for Paxton Record, reported that old
asbestos boiler-pipe insulation will be replaced this summer in a
crawl space beneath Clara Peterson Elementary School in Paxton,
Illinois.

The Paxton-Buckley-Loda school board accepted a $125,000 bid from
Asbestos Lead Removal Inc. of Ludlow -- the lowest of six bidders
-- for the removal of the asbestos materials. The work is expected
to begin July 21, Superintendent Cliff McClure said.  The board
also accepted a $53,300 bid -- the lowest of two received -- for
the replacement of the boiler-pipe insulation. The winning bid was
from Sprinkmann Insulation Inc., Peoria.

McClure said the asbestos insulation is likely original to the
building and is being replaced because it is "beyond its
lifetime."  The project's $178,300 total cost will be funded with
a health/life safety bond, McClure said. The board approved having
bond documents prepared, as it voted to retain Bloomington-based
First Midstate Inc. as underwriter and Chicago-based Chapman and
Cutler LLP as bond counsel to the underwriter.

Because the bond proceeds have not yet been received, the board
approved loaning funds from the district's working cash fund to
the district's health/life safety fund for the 2015 fiscal year to
make money available to cover the project immediately. The
health/life safety fund will repay the working cash fund after the
bond proceeds are received, McClure said.

     -- The board approved the lowest bids received to provide
waste services, dairy and bread for the 2014-15 school year.
Elson's Paxton Sanitary System won the one-year waste services
contract after submitting a bid of $8,600 -- $200 lower than the
only other bidder, Paxton-based Central Illinois Disposal.
Carlinville-based Prairie Farms -- the district's current dairy
products provider -- was the only bidder for dairy. The winning
bid for bread was from Aunt Millie's Bread Bakery of Fort Wayne,
Ind., the district's current bread provider. The only other bidder
for bread was Bimbo Bakeries, Horsham, Pa.

     -- The board heard a report on summer maintenance projects.
The installation of surveillance equipment is mostly complete at
PBL Junior High School and PBL High School, McClure said. After
the work at those two schools, surveillance equipment will be
installed at Clara Peterson Elementary School and PBL Eastlawn
School. Cameras will be installed in the hallways and gathering
areas of all four schools. Also, starting July 28, a layer of film
will be installed on doors in the district to make their glass
shatter-proof. The replacement of doors at PBL Eastlawn School has
already started, as well, McClure said.

     -- McClure said the board has reached a tentative agreement
with the district's teachers union regarding a new teacher
evaluation instrument. The agreement is expected to be approved by
both the school board and teachers union in August in anticipation
of its implementation this fall, McClure said. The new teacher
evaluation instrument follows the "Danielson model," McClure said.

     -- The board learned that students in second through eighth
grades showed "significant improvement" on the Illinois Standards
Achievement Test (ISAT) last year.

     -- McClure showed the board a draft of the district's
proposed budget for fiscal year 2015, which began July 1. McClure
said he is waiting on final revenue and expenditure projections.
McClure said he expects the board to approve placing the proposed
budget on public display in August and then hold a public hearing
on the budget in September, followed by final approval of the
document. On a positive note, the district is expecting a "strong
local revenue stream" from property taxes collected on farmland
and residential properties, as well as the Pioneer Trail Wind Farm
near Paxton. However, as a result of an anticipated rise in the
district's equalized assessed valuation, the district's state aid
is expected to be reduced by $700,000. "Luckily, we have some good
fund balances," McClure said, "because we're displaying in the
next budget year a shortfall in our main operating funds --
education, operations and transportation."

     -- Technology Director Mike Brehm informed the board about
various technology projects being completed for the 2014-15 school
year. Among the highlights are the replacement of all staff
computer work stations this summer and the replacement of the two
laptop cart labs at the junior high and high school. "All
together, a total of 105 new laptops are being deployed for staff
use, in addition to the two laptop carts for student use that are
being replaced," McClure said. Brehm has also upgraded the
wireless connectivity in the junior high and high schools. The
district also has switched to a new Google operating system,
effective July 1.

     -- The board approved hiring Lindsey Gerdes as a second-grade
teacher at Clara Peterson Elementary School; Jennifer Tufte as a
kindergarten teacher at Clara Peterson Elementary School; Shirley
Schleef as a paraprofessional at PBL Eastlawn School; Allison
Didier as a special education teacher at PBL Eastlawn School;
Melinda Busby as a special education teacher at PBL Eastlawn
School; and Elizabeth Walder, Kim Frichtl and Clara Brown as cooks
at PBL Junior High School and PBL High School.

     -- The board approved Jennifer Anderson serving as a sixth-
grade girls' basketball coach.

     -- The board accepted the resignation of Elsie Hedgspeth as a
physical education teacher at PBL High School; Chad Northway as a
maintenance worker; and Patrick Eversole as a physical education
teacher at PBL High School.

     -- The board accepted the resignation of Erik Ronney as boys'
track coach at PBL High School and Patrick Eversole as assistant
football coach at PBL High School.

     -- The board approved Mike Tipsord, Dustin Franckey, Nick
Brehm and Rob Pacey serving as volunteer junior high cross country
coaches.

     -- The board heard a report on summer school at the junior
high school, which concludes in early August.

     -- The board approved several new or amended school board
polices, as recommended by the Illinois Association of School
Boards.

     -- The took action to dispose of records that were approved
for disposal by the Illinois Records Commission.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Sufferer Paid GBP275,000 by Devon Council
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wilkes, writing for North Devon Journal, reported that a
"unique case" where a man claimed he was exposed to asbestos as a
schoolboy in South Molton and developed cancer has seen a
GBP275,000 payout by Devon County Council.

Between 1982 and 1993 Chris Wallace went to Yeo Valley Primary
School, Yeo Valley Junior School, South Molton JuniorSchool and
South Molton Community College.  The 36-year-old was diagnosed
with asbestos-related terminal cancer of an organ lining at the
age of 30.  Known as peritoneal mesothelioma, this form of cancer
grows in tissues covering the abdomen and can lie dormant for up
to 40 years.

Paedophile pensioner facing jail for assaulting ten-year-old girl
Mr Wallace's claim was settled by the council just weeks before
the case went to court and it awarded him the money without
admitting liability.  Mr Wallace, who has since moved to Wisbech,
Cambridgeshire, took great care in recollecting times of when he
may have come into contact with asbestos during school.He collated
examples ahead of the case, which will now not be heard.

Mr Wallace was reported as saying: "It was a very difficult case,
having to prove you were there and that you were exposed to a
certain level.

"The council has to take a large chunk of responsibility. They
know it's in the building and children are at risk of getting to
it.

"It's down to them to ensure it's removed safely."

Devon County Council said this was the first case of a former
pupil taking such legal action.

A spokesman for Devon County Council said: "This is a unique case
and the only time a former Devon school pupil has taken legal
action in these circumstances.

"We obviously have every sympathy with Mr Wallace for his illness.
But it is important to point out that the case was settled out of
court without any admission of liability from Devon County
Council.

""Devon County Council takes great care to manage asbestos in its
buildings and that includes regular inspections. Asbestos is safe
as long as it isn't disturbed.

"All Devon schools have been surveyed for asbestos and each school
holds a full record of any asbestos in its buildings.

"This identifies where asbestos is located, its condition and our
safety policies. Contractors are also required to sign the
asbestos list on any visit which has the potential to disturb the
asbestos.

"Schools have their own Asbestos Management Plans which detail
their local arrangements, including communication between the
school, parents and staff."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queanbeyan Residents Warned on Mr. Fluffy
----------------------------------------------------------
The Queanbeyan Age reported that 11 property owners in Queanbeyan
and tenants of a block of flats have received a letter warning
them that Mr Fluffy asbestos could still be in their homes.

While the 1000 or more houses in Canberra with loose-fill asbestos
pumped into their ceilings had the bulk of the dangerous material
removed 20 years ago, it remains in the ceilings of Queanbeyan
homes, with the township never included in the clean-up program.

No one knows how many Queanbeyan homes might contain Mr Fluffy
asbestos. Queanbeyan City Council knows of just 11 properties
whose owners came forward about the time of the ACT clean-up, but
suspects there could be as many as 60 if the same percentage of
people used Mr Fluffy insulation as in Canberra.

The 11 properties include a two-storey block of flats that has the
material throughout the ceiling cavity.

The council's general manager, Gary Chapman, said the letter had
gone to the 11 owners and to the tenants of the block of flats.
It warns that people should not enter the roof space or floor
cavity and should not disturb the areas or the walls.

"Any cracks or holes that penetrate the ceiling, walls and floors
have the potential to allow fibres into the living areas and
should be repaired in a safe manner," it says. "This includes
vents in walls, exhaust fans in ceilings, openings for lighting
fixtures, maintenance on openings for power points and the like."

It is critical that tradespeople are told about the asbestos,
"otherwise there is a high likelihood that they will expose
themselves and members of the household to fibres", the letter
says, urging householders to also put asbestos warning
certificates on their electrical meter boxes and on manholes
leading to the roof space.

The letter quotes the NSW Health Department's advice that exposure
is likely to be very low provided the asbestos is undisturbed and
sealed off from living areas, and says it is therefore important
to make sure homes are well maintained.

"It is likely that fibres have travelled down wall cavities and
even into sub-floor spaces where these interconnect with the
ceiling space," it says. "This should be assumed unless you have
evidence to the contrary.

"Even in homes where the asbestos insulation material has been
removed from the ceiling space, there is still a high likelihood
that asbestos fibres will be found in wall cavities and in
underfloor areas where the home has a timber floor."

The council is also considering a "generic statement" about the
use of asbestos in pre-1980s houses on conveyancing certificates
included with all house sales.

Over the years, Queanbeyan City Council has to persuade the NSW
and federal governments to help pay for the asbestos to be removed
from homes, offering in 2005 to contribute funds itself, but has
been rebuffed at every turn. In June, Queanbeyan major Tim Overall
wrote to federal Eden-Monaro MP Peter Hendy and the state MP for
the area, John Barilaro, asking for a meeting.

Mr Chapman said the council did not have the money and was not the
right authority to deal with the problem.

"If you're talking abut knocking down houses and rebuilding
houses, you're talking about many millions of dollars," he said
"It could run into tens of millions of dollars and certainly the
council doesn't have the finances to do that."

ACT asbestos taskforce head Andrew Kefford confirmed this week he
had received inquiries from Queanbeyan residents but had to turn
them away.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Store Fibro Removal to Cost $166,000
------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Sheboygan, in Wisconsin, has agreed to pay half of the
$166,000 cost to remove asbestos and lead found at the former
Boston Store property.

The Common Council unanimously voted to authorize payment to
remove the substances, which were documented in a report by
Cardinal Environmental Inc., an environmental health and safety
consulting firm. The money will come from the $250,000 set aside
for the building's demolition.

Boston Store closed its doors in January, ending the property's
125-year run that began with H.C. Prange Co in 1887. The city
purchased the property from a California-based real estate
investment in March. Though it was valued at $3.7 million in 2012,
the city paid just $500,000.

According to the EPA, exposure to asbestos, which can be released
during demolition or remodeling, increases the risk of lung
disease, mesothelioma and asbestosis, a "serious progressive,
long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkshire Gets $3BB in Liberty Mutual Transfer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Buhayar, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Warren
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. agreed to backstop as much as
$6.5 billion of Liberty Mutual Holding Co.'s obligations tied to
asbestos, environmental and workers' compensation policies.

Liberty Mutual said in a statement on July 17 that it paid Omaha,
Nebraska-based Berkshire's National Indemnity Co. about $3 billion
for the coverage.

Berkshire has assumed billions of dollars in asbestos risk from
insurers including CNA Financial Corp. (CNA:US) and American
International Group Inc. over the last decade. The contracts are a
bet that Buffett's company can generate profit by investing policy
(2FA:US) reserves and managing claims that will stretch out for
years.

"So far, it's been a decent deal" for Berkshire to take on these
liabilities, said Greggory Warren, an analyst with Morningstar
Inc. (MORN:US) "Asbestos is very long-tailed, so the ultimate
issue will be how much the payouts end up being."

The coverage accounts for almost all of Liberty Mutual's U.S.
workers' compensation, asbestos and environmental liabilities, the
Boston-based company said in the statement. National Indemnity's
policy won't pay out until Liberty Mutual has exhausted $12.5
billion of reserves.

Workers' compensation has challenged U.S. insurers amid climbing
medical costs and low interest rates that make it hard for
carriers to generate investment income from the premiums they
hold. The industry has posted underwriting losses in the segment
every year since 2007, according to data from the National Council
on Compensation Insurance Inc.

Liberty Mutual has been scaling back its exposure to workers'
compensation coverage as it seeks to underwrite more profitable
lines of business and expand internationally.

"This agreement further strengthens our financial position as it
eliminates a substantial source of uncertainty in these
liabilities," Liberty Mutual Chief Executive Officer David H. Long
said in the statement.

Standard & Poor's raised Liberty Mutual's credit rating one grade
to BBB, two levels above junk, after the announcement. The deal
"largely mitigates" the insurer's risk of having to add to
reserves and reduces earnings volatility, the ratings company said
in a statement.

Liberty Mutual's $750 million of 6.5 percent unsecured bonds were
little changed at 124.3 cents on the dollar at 11:35 a.m. in New
York, before the Berkshire deal was announced, according to Trace,
the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority. The securities, which are due in 2042, yield
4.9 percent.

Premium Revenue

As chairman and CEO, Buffett, 83, fueled Berkshire's growth over
the last five decades by investing insurance premiums in stocks
and takeovers. The company's dozens of operating businesses now
span the transportation, energy, manufacturing and retail
industries.

Berkshire Class A shares slipped 1.2 percent to $189,811 at 4:15
p.m. in New York. Buffett's company is the fifth-largest in the
world by market value. Liberty Mutual is owned by its
policyholders.

TigerRisk Partners and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
advised Liberty Mutual.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Case Remanded for Failing to Provide NASA Specs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Louisiana judge has granted a former insulator's motion to
remand his asbestos case based on the Federal Officer Removal
Statute, concluding that the defendant failed to provide NASA
regulations requiring asbestos.

Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt delivered the decision in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
remanding the case to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans.

Claimant Walter H. Ross claims he worked for Rust Engineering &
Construction, Inc. at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans
from 1963 until 1975.

During his employment, Ross alleges he was exposed to asbestos
while installing and removing heat insulation, boiler insulation,
insulation pads, boiler lagging, boiler jackets and other asbestos
insulation on the boilers, turbines and piping systems in the
facility.  He also claims that he was unaware of the risks
associated with asbestos exposure or that he should wear
protective equipment and clothing until the early 1970s.

As a result of his exposure, Ross developed pseudomesotheliomatous
adenocarcinoma, an asbestos-related disease.

Ross seeks remand of his lawsuit against his former employer,
which removed the case pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal
Statute.

The purpose of the statute is to "provide a federal forum for
officers whose duties under federal law conflict with state law,"
Engelhardt explained.

In order for removal to be proper under the statute, a defendant
must pass a three-part test determining whether it qualifies as a
"person acting under [a federal] officer' who is sued for an 'act
under color of such office," he added.

As part of the test, a defendant must prove:

     -- It is a "person" within the meaning of the statute;

     -- It acted pursuant to a federal officer's directions and
that a causal nexus exists between the defendant's actions under
color of federal office and the plaintiff's claims; and

     -- It has asserted a colorable federal defense.

Engelhardt first confirmed that Rust is a "person" according to
the statute, because it is a corporate entity.

However, Rust failed to prove that it acted pursuant to a federal
officer's direction, he ruled.

Rust argued that it is entitled to federal officer removal because
it performed its maintenance and repair work at the Michoud
facility in accordance with a December 1961 contract with NASA.
It alleged the contract required asbestos materials to be used.

However, Rust failed to point out a single instance in the
contract itself or any other documentation proving NASA required
or specified that asbestos be used in connection with Rust's work,
the judge ruled.

Instead, Rust relies on the Lalonde decision, in which Magistrate
Judge Docia Dalby held that the causal nexus requirement is
satisfied as long as the alleged action occurred while performing
federal duties regardless of whether the action is connected to a
federal directive.

However, shortly after the Lalonde decision, the Winters decision
contradicted the ruling, requiring proof that the defendants acted
according to a federal officer's directions.

"The Winters court did not assume that the 'color of office'
requirement was satisfied merely because the defendants committed
the alleged wrongs while performing duties pursuant to their
federal contracts," Engelhardt explained.

Although it was unable to provide any NASA specifications
regarding asbestos, Rust still claimed NASA controlled safety and
supply regulations, as well as all other aspects of its work at
the Michoud facility.

"How these standards might relate to asbestos the court can only
guess," Engelhardt added, "for Rust fails to demonstrate or even
point out a single connection between any safety standard imposed
by the contract and the claims herein."

Rust also failed to provide evidence showing the contracting
officer imposed a safety measure relating to asbestos or even
requiring the use of asbestos, the judge said.

Engelhardt concluded that Rust "failed to make even a minimal
showing" that it met the color of office requirement.

"Rust's oblique suggestion that NASA controlled 'all other
aspects' of Rust's work is belied by the contract itself," he
wrote, "which gives Rust vast and broad responsibilities with only
very general specifications as to how those duties are to be
carried out."

Lastly, Rust argued that remand is proper because it performed its
duties at a government-owned facility rather than a privately
owned one. Engelhardt rejected this argument, saying Lalonde is
the only case supporting such an argument and it has no authority
according to Winters.

As for Rust's burden to prove it asserted a colorable federal
defense, Engelhardt held that the defendant failed to make any
arguments to support its assertion that it has a government
contractor defense.

As a result, Engelhardt concluded that removal was improper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Being Removed from Police Offices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constantinos Psillides, writing for Cyprus Mail, reported that
large quantities of asbestos sheets are being removed from the
rooftops of the district police offices in Nicosia, Cyprus,
district police offices, according to Nicosia District
commissioner Demetris Demetriou, who told the Cyprus Mail that it
was time the dangerous building material was disposed off.

A female police officer felt indisposed during the removal of the
sheets and had to receive medical treatment. She is in good health
and Demetriou said that the incident wasn't connected to the
project.

Asbestos sheets were used on the rooftops of four offices at the
Nicosia Police District, although they have been abandoned due to
health concerns. The offices were up to recently used as
warehouses for storage.

Demetriou told the Cyprus Mail that removing the asbestos sheets
was always the police's plan and that the tender contract was only
awarded recently.

"We are very sensitive when it comes to health issues. The area
has been sealed off and we have called the Labour Office to
inspect the safety measures taken and to confirm they are up to
standard. It was imperative that those asbestos sheets had to go,"
said Demetriou, adding that removal and disposal have been
assigned to a private contractor.

Asbestos is considered highly hazardous for human health. Cyprus
banned the use of asbestos as a building material in 2005.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Rip Up Fibro in School Carpet
------------------------------------------------------
Elio Gugliotti, writing for Citizen's News, reported that Long
River Middle School, in Connecticut, is closed for the time being
after workers removing carpet exposed asbestos while a summer camp
was going on at the school.

Workers from Region 16, which oversees schools in Prospect and
Beacon Falls, were pulling up carpet from the guidance office at
the school. As they were ripping up the carpet, some tiles stuck
to it and were pulled off as well, Superintendent of Schools Tim
James said.

"At that point, the work should have immediately ceased and the
process for testing the tiles, and the mastic that had affixed it
to the floor, should have been initiated to determine if asbestos
was present," James wrote in a letter to parents. "Unfortunately
the work continued and some of the materials were improperly
disposed of."

James said the carpet and pieces of tiles that were stuck to it
were bagged in the office and wheeled to a dumpster at the school.

While the work was going on, the town was running its annual
summer camp program at the school. James said, in a phone
interview, there were about 130 people at the camp, including
children, counselors and counselors in training.

The camp was being held in about a dozen classrooms not near the
guidance office, James said.

The incident was brought to the attention of local officials
through an anonymous message left for Prospect Fire Marshal Keith
Griffin.

Griffin said he went to his office at about 10 p.m. to get
something when he noticed he had a message. The caller, who didn't
leave a name or phone number, told Griffin in the message that
some rugs and tiles at Long River had been pulled up and it was
questionable if there was asbestos in the tiles, Griffin said.

Griffin said the caller told him exactly where to find the debris
in dumpsters at the school.  At about 7:15 a.m. the next morning
Griffin went the school to investigate and Mayor Robert Chatfield
was already there. They found the carpet and tiles exactly where
the caller said, Griffin said.

Chatfield and Griffin spoke with Dave Langdon, the supervisor of
facilities and maintenance for Region 16, who was at school, and
questioned when the tiles would be tested for asbestos, Griffin
said.

After seeing the carpet and tile, Chatfield said the decision was
immediately made to move the camp.

Chatfield said he met everyone coming to the camp at the school to
tell them it had been moved regarding concerns over air quality.

James was notified of the situation as well.

Griffin contacted the state Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, which sent a representative to the school immediately.

Representatives of Facility Support Systems, the school district's
asbestos management consultants, and officials with the
Chesprocott Health District, which serves Prospect, also responded
to the school.

Tests were done on the tiles and air quality in the school.

The tests revealed there was some non-friable asbestos in the
tiles, James said.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency's website, non-
friable means any material containing more than 1 percent asbestos
that when dry, can't be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder
by hand pressure.

The asbestos found was dry, James said.

Air quality samples from 12 different areas of the school were
collected and tested. The results came back as "nondeductible," or
negative, for airborne asbestos, James said.

"That was wonderful for the kids," Griffin said.

Chatfield said town staff and volunteers called the parents of
every child attending the camp to inform them of the situation.
The camp will continue at Algonquin School.

"Everything went very well," Chatfield said. "I'm very relieved
there was no airborne stuff found."

James and Chatfield thanked the parents, children and counselors
from the camp for their cooperation. They also expressed gratitude
for the assistance given by Chesprocott and the work of town and
state officials.

James and Chatfield said they have not received any complaints
regarding health issues. Chatfield said the application of every
child at the camp will be sent to the health district just to be
kept on file. He said there's no monitoring required by the
district.

James said an abatement plan is being developed. The school
remains locked.

James said the hope is to have adults in certain parts of the
building by Aug. 1.

A special Board of Education meeting was held July 21 at which
representatives of Facility Support Systems reviewed the test
results with the board, according to James.

The abatement work has gone out to bid, James said. The bids were
scheduled to be opened Aug. 11.

"The Board of Education has been fully informed and is committed
to thoroughly addressing this matter and all concerns or issues
that may emerge over time," James wrote in the letter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Problem Found in Old Jamrich Hall
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Asplund, writing for Upper Michigans Source, reported that
an asbestos problem with the old Jamrich Hall on Northern Michigan
University's campus.

The hall is being demolished. Work crews have been busting up the
concrete tiers of the lecture hall. Under the concrete, were the
air ducts, and that's where the asbestos was found.

The material tested positive for the carcinogen. Northern
officials say specialized crews with hazmat suits would be at the
site cleaning up the asbestos.

Crews don't know how asbestos is there. Work continues at the
site.

NMU officials say they were surprised with the discovery of the
asbestos. However, they're able to manage and properly dispose of
the material with no project delays.

Officials say it'll take about two days to have the material
abated.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Judge Nixes Loss of Consortium Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that an Illinois federal judge has ruled that loss of consortium
claims in asbestos cases are not appropriate if the asbestos
exposure occurred before the plaintiffs got married, meaning the
defendant owes no duty to the asbestos victim's spouse.

Judge Robert W. Gettleman delivered the ruling on July 14 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

Defendants Crane Co. and Ingersoll-Rand Corporation filed the
motion to dismiss Count III of plaintiffs Kenneth and Diane
Smiths' lawsuit, which alleged loss of consortium. Gettleman
granted the dismissal request.

Prior to the Smiths' marriage in 1979, Kenneth Smith served in the
U.S. Navy from 1964 to 1968. He alleges that during his service,
Crane sold or supplied asbestos-containing products to the Navy,
resulting in his asbestos exposure while aboard the vessel.

In June 2013, Kenneth Smith was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The plaintiffs filed the asbestos lawsuit alleging Diane Smith's
loss of consortium, among other claims, due to her husband's
illness.

However, the defendants argued that they owe no duty to Diane
Smith because her husband's asbestos exposure predates their
marriage.

Gettleman explained in his decision that loss of consortium claims
are "'legally separate and distinct from the directly injured
spouse's cause of action,' although they are predicated on the
alleged injury to a spouse."

Furthermore, a plaintiff may only collect damages for negligence
if the defendant breached a duty owed to the claimant. In order
for breach of duty to occur, the couple would have had to be
married at the time of the alleged injury.

"If a marital relationship does not exist at the time of the
alleged injury, a defendant owes no duty to the spouse alleging
loss of consortium," Gettleman wrote.

Therefore, he concluded that because the two were not married at
the time of Kenneth Smith's exposure, the defendants owe no duty
to Diane Smith.

The plaintiffs argued that the Illinois discovery rule allows for
loss of consortium claims to commence at the same time as the
cause of action.

However, Gettleman rejected the argument, concluding that the rule
does not indicate that loss of consortium claims may be brought
for alleged injuries occurring before marital union.

"[B]ecause Diane and Kenneth Smith married after Kenneth's alleged
exposure to asbestos, no valid cause of action for Diane existed
at the time of exposure," Gettleman wrote. "Because the discovery
rule's scope does not include loss of consortium claims for
spouses married after the injury occurred, when no valid cause of
action existed, plaintiffs' first argument fails."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Ruling Holds Silver Lining for Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that asbestos
plaintiffs suffered a setback recently when the Texas Supreme
Court raised the burden of proof for showing that a defendant's
products caused mesothelioma, but they avoided losing more ground
when the court rejected a controversial causation theory that
attorneys say would have thwarted virtually all asbestos suits.

The state's highest court spared paper chemicals company Georgia-
Pacific Corp. from having to pay a $12.3 million mesothelioma
verdict that plaintiff Susan Elaine Bostic had won, extending the
burden of proof standards it set in 2007 in an asbestosis case to
one involving mesothelioma, the rare lung cancer that her husband
had succumbed to.

Bostic had argued against that high bar of proof for mesothelioma,
saying it could be caused by much lower levels of exposure than
asbestosis. But the court's July 11 opinion affirmed the
"substantial-factor" test it embraced in the 2007 asbestosis case
Borg Warner Corp. v. Flores, saying that the likelihood of
contracting such ailments increases with the amount of exposure
and that plaintiffs must show that the accused product was a
substantial factor in causing the disease.

Although the high court's ruling dealt a blow to mesothelioma
plaintiffs, the justices also rejected a theory embraced by the
lower appellate court, which had reversed the verdict in part by
imposing the stringent "but for" standard of causation.

The lower appeals court appeared to require asbestos injury
plaintiffs to show proof that they would not have contracted their
ailment if not for the product sold by the defendant, the state
Supreme Court said. The justices reasoned that it may not be
"humanly possible" to determine which asbestos fibers from which
defendants led to a disease -- a finding that gives plaintiffs a
toehold to advance their arguments, attorneys say.

"If I could write the headline for this story, it would be:
'Plaintiffs in toxic tort cases live to fight another day,'" said
David Oliver of Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP. "The reasoning
from the lower court of appeals would have made it nearly
impossible for plaintiffs to win in a multiple-defendant case
about these types of illnesses."

The Dallas Court of Appeals threw out the verdict in 2010, saying
Bostic had to prove her husband would not have developed
mesothelioma were it not for his exposure to a joint compound
developed by Georgia-Pacific. The court had found she could not,
saying the record showed he had been exposed to a number of
different products containing asbestos.

Not many courts have adopted that interpretation of the "but for"
standard to illnesses such as asbestos, which often depend on
cumulative exposure, attorneys say. But the high court's
clarification extinguishing that argument would arrest that
defense, at least in Texas.

"The Texas Supreme Court acknowledged that you can't parse out one
particular exposure if several exposures caused the disease," said
Trey Jones of The Lanier Law Firm. "And this is important
especially in circumstances where the disease was caused by many
exposures, and it's very likely the disease would not have been
caused by only one of those exposures."

The state high court's decision nonetheless imposes some
significant hurdles for mesothelioma plaintiffs, attorneys say.
Plaintiffs not only have to show the product was a substantial
factor, but they also have to show epidemiological studies that
indicate that exposure to the accused product doubled a person's
risk of contracting the illness, according to the opinion.

Even though the court does not alter the standard it imposed in
Flores, its decision to extend those standards to illnesses caused
by lower thresholds of exposure rejects a common argument by
plaintiffs that courts should apply different standards in cases
involving different diseases.

"I think that at the outset, the most important thing you can say
about this ruling is that it reaffirms the bedrock importance of
the concept of dose in toxic tort litigation," said Bill Ruskin of
Gordon & Rees LLP. "It rejects out of hand the argument that the
court should apply a different standard in a mesothelioma case
than in an asbestosis case because the disease entity is so
different. The court really imposes a very high standard on
plaintiffs in all toxic tort litigation in general and all
asbestos litigation in particular."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partner Calls for More Research on Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Dobson, writing for The Bolton News, reported that a
grandfather's partner of 15 years, Margaret Poole, is calling for
the insurance industry to urgently fund more medical research.

Until June last year, grandfather Terence McCarthy was a fit and
healthy postman.  But when he was laid low with what he thought
was a chest infection, doctors told him he had the deadly cancer
mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos 40 years ago.

Mr McCarthy died in March this year, aged 66, in Bolton Hospice,
after an agonising battle with the disease.

Now his partner of 15 years, Margaret Poole, is calling for the
insurance industry to urgently fund more medical research.  Mr
McCarthy, from Westpark, Heaton, had been fit and healthy for
most of his life.  But last year, tests confirmed he had
mesothelioma -- a form of cancer with no cure -- in his lungs.

Ms Poole had to watch her partner lie in agony for the final six
months of his life.  He died on March 21, leaving two children and
a grandchild.

Ms Poole said more funding must be made to available for research
into the deadly disease.

The 64-year-old, from Limbridge Drive in Blackrod, said:
"Mesothelioma is a death sentence. Terry had no quality of life
for the last six months and it was terrible see him in so much
pain.

"The problem is that not many people have heard of mesothelioma. I
come from a nursing background and I didn't know much about it.

"I had no idea how devastating it would be and how quickly it
would take Terry.

"This is why research is so important."

Symptoms of mesothelioma develop, on average, about 32 years after
exposure to asbestos fibres, with sufferers living an average of
eight months after diagnosis.

However, mesothelioma research is still underfunded.

Lord Alton of Liverpool, who spoke in Manchester for Action
Mesothelioma Day at the beginning this month, has called for
greater research funding.

The Mesothelioma Bill was passed in March to allow sufferers and
their family to apply for payouts from a pot of GBP380 million
funded by the insurance industry -- but none of that money will go
directly to research.

Ms Poole said: "We need the government to enforce this annual levy
to fund further research to find a cure.

"Terry was a real family man who would talk to anyone. He is
terribly missed by everyone.

"I want other mesothelioma patients and their families to know
that there is support out there."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Complaint at Restaurant Has No Grounds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Harris, writing for Central Western Daily, reported that
WorkCover investigators have followed up a complaint that asbestos
material was involved in part of the demolition work being carried
out this week on a former Chinese restaurant on the old Summer
Centre site.

"Following inquiries with the demolition contractor, WorkCover
inspectors determined no asbestos containing material had been
demolished or removed from the site," a WorkCover spokesperson
said.

WorkCover investigators say they have been told by the contractor
on the site that work to demolish and remove building material
containing asbestos has not commenced and has received a
notification from the licensed asbestos removalist that this work
will be undertaken.

"WorkCover is satisfied with the work health and safety systems in
place to manage the safe removal of asbestos containing material
from the site," the spokesperson said.

Prime Space representative Andrew McDonald said the company is
adhering to the guidelines of the development application of the
building approved by Orange City Council at the site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Bldg. Set for Demolition Has Toxic Dust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Mitchell, writing for emissourian.com, reported that an
asbestos review on a county-owned building that will be torn down
found some of the substance in the structure.

The building, which is just south of the Franklin County
Government Center in Union, Ohio, will be torn down to create more
county employee parking.  The goal is to keep county employees
from parking on the street in downtown Union, where there is said
to be a parking shortage.

Keeping the county employees from parking on the street will open
up more parking for the public and patrons of downtown businesses,
First District County Commissioner Tim Brinker noted.  He did not
know how many employees are parking on the street in downtown
Union, but he said there are "quite a few."  Brinker said that
asbestos has been found in some of the caulking around a door.

Cochran Engineering of Union, which did the asbestos and lead
survey on the building, recommended that the contractor chosen for
the demolition include in its work proper disposal of the
asbestos.

The county commission was to vote late in July to seek bids on the
demolition of the building, which resembles a Quonset hut.

Lung cancer has been associated with asbestos exposure, according
to the EPA.

Brinker said tearing down the building also honors an agreement
that was made between the city of Union and a prior commission.
The current county commission has to fulfill the agreement since
it was not done before, he said. The agreement involved the city
of Union vacating a street so the county could extend the parking
lot, he said.  It is important for the county to keep its word in
the agreement, Brinker said. That has been a problem for the
county in the past, but the current commission is going to honor
its agreements, he said.

"Our word is our bond," Brinker said

Other than asbestos, the building survey also looked for lead, of
which none was found, Brinker said.  It may cost the county at
least $20,000 to get rid of the building, Brinker said, adding,
"It all depends on time, labor, hauling fees, landfill fees . . ."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Officials Ask About Fibro in Demolition Projects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth C. Crowe II, writing for Times Union, reported that
federal and state environmental agents have interviewed the former
city engineer and his assistant about the city of Troy, New York's
handling of two demolition projects involving asbestos, a person
with knowledge of the matter said.

The emergency razing of 4-6-8-10 King St. in August 2013 and the
tearing down of buildings at the King Fuels site in South Troy
this year have drawn the attention of criminal investigators from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department
of Environmental Conservation.

The agents asked Russ Reeves, the former city engineer, and
Barbara Tozzi, a former city engineering assistant, about the
circumstances of the work and the handling of asbestos, the
person, who wished to remain anonymous, said. The agents also
queried Reeves regarding the nature of relationships at city hall
and the involvement of individuals in the projects.

Stop-work orders were issued for both demolition projects by the
state because of concerns about procedures for dealing with
asbestos in the 19th-century structures.

The questions were similar to those asked by the FBI when one of
its agents interviewed Reeves earlier this year. The state Labor
Department also has investigated the asbestos removal.

The city's request for proposals for the development of the
Scolite site on the Hudson River in South Troy also was discussed
in the latest interview, the person said.

Reeves resigned as city engineer, saying that city officials were
not concerned about public safety when the buildings were knocked
down. Bomber's Burrito Bar at 2 King St. remained opening during
the demolition of the adjacent buildings. At King Fuels, Reeves
raised concerns about the way the buildings were taken down.

Both Reeves and Tozzi testified before the City Council about the
demolition work.

The appearance of the EPA and DEC agents comes after City Council
President Rodney Wiltshire turned over the council's tape
recordings and transcripts of hearings it has been conducting on
the demolition work.

Wiltshire said he expected the EPA would follow up on the records
request. The EPA does not comment on current investigations.

The City Council will continue its investigation with questions
for Mayor Lou Rosamlia, Deputy Mayor Peter Ryan and Corporation
Counsel Ian Silverman from Wiltshire and Joseph Liccardi, the
council's attorney, Wiltshire said.

"We're not going to be conducting public hearings. We'll hold
private depositions," Wiltshire said. "The majority of the council
didn't feel that the hearing format would be better suited for
this questioning."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Reaches Reinsurance Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Noah Buhayar, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that Liberty
Mutual Insurance said it has reached a deal with National
Indemnity Co., a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., on a
combined aggregate adverse development cover for substantially all
of Liberty Mutual's U.S. workers' compensation, asbestos and
environmental liabilities.

Effective Jan. 1, 2014, Liberty Mutual Insurance ceded
approximately $3.3 billion of existing liabilities under a
retroactive reinsurance agreement. NICO will provide approximately
$3.2 billion of additional aggregate adverse development cover.

Liberty Mutual said it paid NICO total consideration of
approximately $3.0 billion.

Liberty Mutual said the agreement covers its potentially volatile
U.S. asbestos and environmental liabilities arising under
insurance and reinsurance policies with effective dates before
January 1, 2005, as well as workers' compensation liabilities for
injuries or accidents occurring before Jan. 1, 2014.

NICO will assume responsibility for claims handling related to the
asbestos and environmental claims. Liberty Mutual Insurance will
continue to handle all workers' compensation claims.

"We believe that this agreement further strengthens our financial
position as it eliminates a substantial source of uncertainty in
these liabilities and allows us to focus on execution in our core
businesses," said David H. Long, Liberty Mutual Insurance chairman
and chief executive officer, in a statement announcing the
agreement.

Liberty Mutual operates globally and is the third largest
property/casualty insurer in the U.S. based on 2013 direct written
premium.

Standard & Poor's approved of Liberty Mutual's actions, raising
its outlook on all of Liberty's companies to stable from positive.
S&P's credit and debt ratings on parent company Liberty Mutual
Group are now "BBB," up from "BBB-." Financial strength ratings
for the insurance operating companies are now set at "A," up from
"A-."

"As a result of this transaction, our view of Liberty's financial
risk profile has improved to strong from upper adequate, and we
now regard its management and governance as satisfactory rather
than fair," S&P Aanalyst Tracy Dolin said in the agency's ratings
update for the company.

NICO has been involved in reinsurance deals like this in the past,
including ones with Lloyd's Equitas (2006), AIG's global
property/casualty insurer Chartis and its asbestos liabilities
(2010), and an asbestos deal with CNA Financial (2010).

CEO Long has been pursuing a strategy for Liberty Mutual of
growing where it "can do so profitably and contracting elsewhere,
with a heavy emphasis on improving underwriting performance," as
he worded it last October commenting on results.

Liberty Mutual is one of a number of large insurers that has been
lowering its profile in the profit-challenged workers'
compensation line in recent years, although it still remains the
top individual workers' compensation writer in the country. In
January, it announced it was selling its Florida-based workers'
compensation unit, Summit Holdings Southeast Inc., to American
Financial Group for $250 million. Summit has approximately $520
million of premium writings in the Southeast.

Liberty Mutual has been expanding globally. Last October the
insurer said it was buying the 49 percent stake in the former
Quinn Insurance Ltd. in Ireland that it didn't already own and
soon after that it entered Mexico with the purchase of a surety
company. Earlier this month it moved to gain a bigger role in the
market for large, complex global property risks by expanding its
National Accounts Property unit and added five underwriters.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monticello Gets Bid to Remove Fibro Pile
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Beam, writing for Times Herald-Record, reported that it
only cost $5,000 to knock down the former village justice court in
Monticello, New York, but now the village may have to pay $77,000
at the very least to remove debris leftover from the October
demolition.

The village received five bids from vendors to remove the pile of
debris on Pleasant Street, which has been left there since the
state Department of Labor prevented the village from disposing of
it because it contained asbestos.

The five companies that submitted bids were TBC Construction,
which bid $878,000; PAL Environmental Services bid $344,000; D & S
Abatement Inc. bid $110,000; Specialty Trades Contracting bid
$86,000 and LTS Construction bid $77,000.

However, Village Manager Ray Nargizian said one company already
was knocked out of the running, as it did not file proper
paperwork with its bid documents. He declined to say which one it
was.

Village Engineer John Fuller will review the documents, according
to Nargizian, and make his recommendation to the village.

Nargizian was not sure when the village would select a vendor, but
said whichever one is selected must then go before the village
Board of Trustees for a vote.  Nargizian previously said the
village will choose the lowest bidder that can do the best work.
Nargizian also said the state Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Department of Labor will be overseeing the
process.

"No corners will be cut," Nargizian said.

The road to getting the debris cleaned up has been a long one ever
since the justice court was taken down when Mayor Gordon Jenkins
ordered the court building be demolished in October.

Just days after the demolition, members of the crew that took the
building down were arrested and charged by the state with
illegally dumping the debris at a property of Fairground Road.

Sullivan County District Attorney James Farrell then prevented the
debris from being moved in April, saying it was evidence in a
criminal investigation. A week later, he gave the approval to the
village to remove it.

Among those arrested by the state were Sam Kearney, who was hired
by Jenkins, and Mike Soto, who was contracted by Kearney and
accused of illegally dumping the building materials.

Both Kearney and Soto said they were told the building did not
contain asbestos.

The state and Farrell are investigating.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Stalls Highway Detour Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle McCrea, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reported that in
November 2011, two UNLV scientists touched carbon tape to a sample
of bluish-grey mineral on the face of a rock found south of
Henderson, then placed it under a microscope. The computer screen
showed telltale white fibers, long and slim, like miniature
straws.

It was what they feared: asbestos.

Asbestos used to be modern society's friend -- its strong,
flexible, heat-resistant fibers mined and spun into insulation,
fireproofing and decorative ceiling finishes. Only later was it
discovered that, in certain forms, it can cause respiratory
problems including scarred and inflamed lungs and, in extreme
cases, cancer.

When UNLV geoscientists Brenda Buck, Rodney Metcalf and their
colleagues published a scientific paper eight months ago on the
presence of naturally occurring asbestos in Clark County, the
effects were immediate and potentially far-reaching.

The discovery has stalled plans, more than 10 years in the making,
to build a $490 million highway detour around Boulder City so
traffic can move smoothly between Las Vegas and Arizona. Until
that new highway is built, tourists, truckers and commuters must
use Highway 93, which slices into town and slows miserably on busy
days.

Beyond that, the first evidence of naturally occurring asbestos in
Clark County may conceivably affect development not yet imagined.
Asbestos becomes dangerous when disturbed, when it can be inhaled.
That means construction potentially could whirl up a deadly cloud.
Because the asbestos is a part of the landscape, cleanup is tough.

Bypass delays have frustrated the town.

"We can't handle the traffic," Boulder City Mayor Roger Tobler
said. "If there's an accident, it shuts down the whole town. I
think this community is tired of what's going on, and they have
been for 10 years."

The Nevada Department of Transportation and Regional
Transportation Commission, partners in the bypass project, are
frustrated too, with their own questions: Where exactly is the
asbestos-carrying rock? Will construction activity stir it into
the air? What is the health risk to workers and travelers?

Construction was scheduled to begin this spring but was put on
hold in April to allow for asbestos testing and analysis. Results
are expected in August.

NDOT, which is leading Phase I of the project -- a 2.5-mile
connector heading east from Highway 95 -- is prepared to begin
construction as soon as it gets the green light. The RTC's work --
a 12.5-mile stretch that finishes the bypass to near the Colorado
River -- isn't scheduled to begin until early 2015.

But construction plans may have to be adjusted to reduce workers'
exposure to dust, and bids still need to be sought for
contractors.

"Everyone wants to make sure that we proceed in the right manner,
and I think we're doing that," Tobler said. "I don't think (the
asbestos) is going to hurt the project like it has in other
places. I think we'll be able to move forward."

But asbestos has a history of slowing major public work projects.
In Ambler, Alaska, its presence in a gravel pit stalled an airport
expansion and sewage lagoon project for more than a decade.
Outside San Jose, Calif., it delayed a $718 million dam
replacement for at least three years, and workers now are required
to wear protective clothing and decontaminate before leaving the
site.

There are no federal regulations for dealing with naturally
occurring asbestos. It's left to states to create regulations
based on Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration guidelines addressing dust control,
monitoring of air and soil, and worker exposure.

Nevada hasn't created such regulations. Native asbestos doesn't
fall under county air quality standards, and Nevada OSHA has yet
to address worker protection. For the most part, everyone is
waiting for the test results or for the problem to come knocking
on their door. Even the EPA, though aware of the Boulder City
asbestos and acting as an adviser for mitigation, is waiting for a
request from local officials before getting directly involved.

Meanwhile, Buck and Metcalf continue the research that sparked the
issue.

Buck, who specializes in medical geology, started the asbestos
study in 2011. A sample from the McCullough Range in Clark County,
just south of Henderson, showed mineral actinolite -- one of the
six regulated forms of asbestos.

They teamed with scientists from the University of Hawaii, home to
leading researchers on medical asbestos exposure, and started
writing proposals for additional research funding, which they
received in spring 2013. The mineral trail led them from the
rolling, rocky hills of the McCullough Range overlooking Lake Mead
to Highway 93 at Eldorado Dry Lake, a popular site for off-roading
and Fourth of July parties, to the heart of Boulder City, beside
Martha P. King Elementary School, and the outskirts of its
southern and eastern neighborhoods. Every sample contained the
fibrous amphiboles.

What was particularly concerning was that the type of asbestos
fibers the geologists discovered are known to be particularly
dangerous, and their breadth was much more extensive than what the
UNLV team originally had thought.

"As soon as we found this out, we worked as fast as we could and
as hard as we could to get the data published so that we could
inform the public," Buck said.

The fibers were similar to those found in Libby, Mont., where
asbestos-rich mineral vermiculite was mined, leading to the town's
designation 15 years ago as a Superfund site. Many Libby residents
have been diagnosed with asbestos-related illnesses, including
cancer, due in part to their churning vermiculite into their
gardens and vegetable patches as a soil conditioner.

The size and shape of the fibers, along with the type of mineral,
determine how toxic it is. If it's small enough, it becomes
respirable. Of the fibers Buck and Metcalf found, 97 percent were
respirable.

Dormant, undisturbed asbestos isn't typically a problem. It's
often left in buildings and insulation because it isn't dangerous
unless it becomes airborne. In fact, the act of removing it often
presents more danger than leaving it alone.

But that won't be possible in construction of the highway bypass
because explosives are needed to cut a route through the hills.

Thus the challenge: How to ensure the health of construction
workers and motorists?

Part of the task includes assessing how extensive the asbestos is.
To that end, the geologists are training the transportation
departments' asbestos analysts to spot the kind of rock that hosts
the fibers.

There is no known amount of safe exposure to asbestos. But Michele
Carbone, a leading researcher of mesothelioma, the cancer linked
with asbestos exposure, said the immediate health risks are
minimal. Risk rises with the amount of exposure and the
concentration of fibers. Signs of the disease may not be evident
for 40 years or more.

"Obviously, there is a significant risk, but the odds are you
won't get cancer," Carbone said. "It takes significant, prolonged
exposure. It's not like shaking hands with someone, and you get
the disease. People shouldn't panic."

Carbone, of the University of Hawaii, is working with Metcalf and
Buck to test their samples on animal and human cells. His
colleague Francine Baumann, an epidemiologist specializing in
asbestos exposure, is looking at rates of mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related illnesses in Southern Nevada to determine if the
population already is at risk. She's looking for trends of disease
in young people and women, people least likely to be affected from
working in places where asbestos might be present.

Nevada is not a hot spot for the disease; as of 2009, mesothelioma
struck only about 20 Nevadans a year, keeping pace with the
national average.

"Until we know more, one solution is to try and reduce exposure,"
Buck said.

Off-road enthusiasts, for instance, may be encouraged to ride
somewhere other than the Eldorado Valley.

Buck and Metcalf are mapping the area where the asbestos may lurk,
looking into areas with similar geology such as Searchlight,
Laughlin and Lake Mead. And they're trying to get funding to
collect air samples, to determine the risk of exposure from
different activities, including four-wheeling, horseback riding or
simply taking a walk in areas that contain the asbestos.

When they go into the field, they're careful, wearing respiratory
devices and protective clothing. They take their own cars instead
of the UNLV geoscience department's vehicles, so they don't expose
students. They've notified UNLV geology, biology and anthropology
departments to close down contaminated zones to fieldwork.

They're worried about their own exposure, having spent years in
the field kicking up dust and hammering into contaminated rock.
They're hoping it's not as bad as it could be.

But they won't know the answers until their research is complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Incorrect Fibro Removal Causes Concern
-------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Prisk, writing for Central Western Daily, reported that
Neil Jones, councilor in Orange, Australia, wants to ensure
correct protocol is adhered to when asbestos is removed from
building sites, following accusations by Central West Community
Alliance members that hazardous material was incorrectly removed
from a Summer Street development.

Cr Jones confirmed that after being contacted by CWCA members he
had asked Orange City Council development services director David
Waddell to investigate the removal of building material from the
demolition site previously occupied by the Canton Restaurant.

"I would be concerned if a company was removing material
containing asbestos without following the required procedures," Cr
Jones said.

CWCA conveners Joe Maric and Bernard Fitzsimon are calling for
greater transparency when it comes to the identification, removal
and transportation of asbestos from building sites.

Mr Maric believed material removed from the Summer Street site
contained asbestos and wanted reassurance the material was removed
correctly.

"I saw trucks driving out of there completely uncovered. Even if
they didn't contain asbestos it (the material in the back of the
truck) should have been covered," he said.

"I want WorkCover NSW to get involved urgently and do an
inspection of the site, or go back to their original inspection to
see if the building that was demolished contained asbestos.

"[If there was asbestos] They also need to monitor the area to see
if there are asbestos particles in the air and also find out which
way the truck went to the tip, and what tip it went to.

"The area where the work was done also needs to be sealed off."

Mr Fitzsimon said it was important all relevant parties, including
the public, be assured material containing asbestos was being
removed correctly from building sites.

"We want transparency," he said.

"If you look at the age of the building that was knocked down, the
style of the building, and its construction, you know it must
contain asbestos."

A WorkCover spokesperson said while there were buildings
containing asbestos at the PrimeSpace Property worksite, they had
been assured by the contractor that a licensed asbestos removalist
would be used to undertake the work.

"WorkCover is satisfied with the work, health and safety systems
in place to manage the safe removal of asbestos containing
material from the site," the spokesperson said.

PrimeSpace Property chief executive officer Anthony McDonald could
not be contacted for a comment, but said his company was adhering
to the guidelines of the development application approved by
Orange City Council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labourer Afflicted with Fibro-Related Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharad Vyas, writing for mid-day.com, reported that a during a
Diwali break from his hectic factory work last year, 34-year-old
Yogesh Sawant suddenly woke up from sleep and mumbled to his wife:
'Ata Mala He Nahi Karaicha Ahe' (I don't want to do this work
anymore).

When this happened, Sawant, who was working as a labourer in
Ashadeep Frictions Ltd at Ambernath, India, had been undergoing
tests for chest pain and breathing problems. Little did he know
what was in store for him in the months to come. While the factory
management and its medical team kept assuring him there was no
cause for worry, Sawant kept exposing himself to the deadly
asbestos dust in the factory loom.

"The management and their medical staff kept saying there was no
cause for worry as test after test came back negative for
occupational diseases. But, at some point, he was convinced there
was something fishy about the factory work he was doing," Sawant's
wife Sarala said, with a faraway look in her eyes, sitting in
their tiny home at Maralgaon in Kalyan.

Soon Pawar himself chips in, but stumbles over the word
asbestosis. "I don't even know how to pronounce it (asbestosis).
For 15 years, I worked in that factory but nobody bothered to even
tell me what I was dealing with," he said.

The family was in for a rude shock when a team of experts from the
Union Ministry of Labour descended on their home towards the end
of last year and made Sawant undergo X-ray scans and blood tests.
Two workers from the factory: Sawant and Manoj Saroj turned out to
be the first confirmed cases of the deadly asbestosis disease in
Maharashtra.

In all, 13 cases of asbestosis and silicosis were detected by the
central agencies in Maharashtra last year alone even as over
2,44,890 tests conducted by 105 certified private doctors between
January 2013 and May 30, 2014, reported no occupational disease,
including the 13 later found positive by the central teams.

Worse, an inspection of Ashadeep by a state team of the
Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health (DISH) on February 23,
2012, had found no violations or chemicals or other hazards at the
factory. "No contravention. No violations. Cases filed," it reads.

The factory management did not own up responsibility and allegedly
held back details of the case from the government. And it did not
provide adequate medical care and compensation to Sawant. In a
letter, the central government was informed that the owner was
dilly-dallying in giving compensation.

In another scathing letter, the agency noted to factory owner
Prabhakar Shetty: "You were repeatedly directed to send these two
cases to the Workmen's Compen-sation Commission. But it seems you
have refused to follow the directions completely."

Meanwhile, a tired and frustrated Sawant dropped out of work
without a notice in March this year. Since then, he has been
spending as much as Rs 3,000 a month for his treatment. Saroj has
shifted to his village for the time being. "I gave 15 years of my
life to that company, but there has been no help from the owners,"
Sawant told mid-day.

His final diagnosis reads: Asbestosis-profusion 2/3, t/t. The
medical report advises 'medical surveillance, and detailed
clinical examination every six months'. "I have to make ends meet
and cannot sit at home without any work. If my daughters get
something at least, I'll be happy. They should get some money so
they can take care of themselves should something happen to me"

Embarrassment

Documents accessed by mid-day under RTI expose the neglected state
of affairs within the state's Directorate of Industrial Safety &
Health (DISH), its failure to make owners comply with norms on
workers' safety and compensation, and put a big question mark on
its ability to detect occupational diseases.

An internal report prepared following the visit of an expert team
of the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH), confirmed
cases which had been rejected by the state's industrial safety
officers. A report rips apart the private doctors who had failed
to detect a single occupational disease.

"These doctors are repeatedly inspecting the factories with our
own team that is monitoring situations in the factory. Yet, this
visit by NIOH has exposed our weaknesses and left a big question
mark over our inspections, supervision, and medical examination
methods. This is a big embarrassment for Maharashtra," reads the
internal report prepared by DISH Director V S Moray.

The 100-odd private doctors are monitored by a single government
surgeon, who not only authorizes but performs medical examinations
as well. The lone government surgeon for Maharashtra, Dr Atul
Band, conducted 2,500 tests last year and confirmed the 13 cases
highlighted by the NIOH.

"There is a clear nexus of private doctors and factory inspectors.

This nexus is just fooling the people of Maharashtra into
believing that all is well in our factories and industries. But
unfortunately that is not the case," he told mid-day. When we
repeatedly asked Moray to provide details of industrial cases
detected by certified private doctors, Moray said: "This is
confidential information and not in the public domain, as much as
we want to keep things transparent."

The NIOH inspection report accessed by mid-day under the RTI Act
clearly reveals how factory owners and managers were allowed to go
scot-free despite violating norms. The inspections revealed that
23 asbestos factories, host to 2,583 workers, and several other
factories in the MMR region were not conducting the mandatory
membrane filter test to monitor presence of asbestos fibre in the
work environment, and were not even conducting awareness training
programmes for the workers.

The inspections found M/s Ashadeep Frictions, M/s Graphics India
(Ambernath), Eastwell Asbestos Industries (Ulhasnagar), Hyderabad
Industries (Thane), Mechanical Packaging (Tarapur), Nella Asbestos
(Dahanu) and Wilson Products (Kolhapur), not carrying out the all-
important membrane tests.

Of the seven inspections in Thane, six factories had not organized
training programmes for workers -- M/s Champion Seals, M/s
Mechanical Packaging, M/s Standard Clutches & Spares, M/s Standard
Friction, M/s Ashadeep Frictions and Graphics India.

The inspections found that several other factories -- where stone
cutting, crushing and glass work is done and popcorn and rice
puffs are made -- were host to factors causing silicosis.   In
all, four cases of silicosis and nine of asbestosis were detected
by NIOH.

DISH is doing a follow-up on all these cases. "All these were
first found negative by private doctors. We have now ordered an
inquiry on them," said a senior official. According to data from
the department, total compensation of Rs 8.46 crore had accrued
and an ex-gratia amount of Rs 3.7 crore was paid last year to
workers across the state.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anger Increases Over Forgotten NSW Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carl Smith, writing for ABC News, reported that residents in New
South Wales are turning up the pressure on the State Government to
provide assistance to home owners with potentially deadly asbestos
roof insulation.

Loose-fill asbestos was added to the roof space of more than 1,000
homes in Canberra in the 1960s and 1970s by the Mr Fluffy
insulation company.

When the deadly legacy was discovered, a Commonwealth clean-up
program in the 1980s and 1990s attempted to remove it from all
affected ACT houses.

However residents across the border in Queanbeyan and surrounding
NSW did not receive the same assistance.

Current advice from NSW Health, based on a 1993 assessment of
Queanbeyan homes, tells home owners that if the asbestos is
contained, it is safe.

But Brianna Heseltine from the Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action
Group said the advice was misleading.

"That is the equivalent of telling people that you are safe in a
volcano as long as the lava flows around you," she said.

The lobby group was originally established for ACT homeowners
after several cleaned houses were found to contain remnant fibres
in the wall cavities and sub floor.

However it has been expanded to include Queanbeyan residents and
Ms Heseltine said they want government assistance.

"They don't feel that they can raise their voices at this stage
because they have a NSW Government that is telling them there is
no issue," she said.

"I believe from what I know in relation to our Canberra population
there is an issue."

"They are scared, they're dejected, they're depressed, they're
anxious and they need government assistance."

'I wouldn't live in a Mr Fluffy house': assessor

Asbestos assessor Ged Keane described homes that were missed in
the original government clean up as toxic.

"I wouldn't live in a Mr Fluffy house that is confirmed it has got
it in the ceiling space," he said.

Mr Keane said his company was aware of about 15 properties in
Queanbeyan, including a block of flats, which had loose-fill
asbestos installed.

However there is no complete survey of how many homes in southern
New South Wales are affected.

Michael Thompson from Queanbeyan City Council said about a dozen
houses have been identified, but the council estimates there could
be about 60 based on the proportion of affected homes in the ACT.

"It is a complex issue and because of that, it is clearly
something that council hasn't got the resources to cope with on
its own," he said.

"So we're really looking for support from both the State and
Federal governments to help us with this problem and overcome
what's a very complex issue."

Queanbeyan-based Member of the NSW Legislative Council Steve Whan
said he had been contacted by distressed locals who had discovered
asbestos insulation in their home.

"I'm aware that there is houses in Queanbeyan, in Jindabyne, and
Bateman's Bay and Bega which had Mr Fluffy insulation put in," he
said.

"It is hard to know now how many have still got it there."

He said many people may be unaware they are living in a Mr Fluffy
home.

"That's one of the unfortunate things about this, there is a bit
of an unknown about what's actually out there at the moment."

Governments working on appropriate Mr Fluffy response

State MP for Monaro John Barilaro said he expects a response soon
on whether the NSW and federal governments will assist residents.

"The NSW Government will respond in time," he said.

"I think at the same time what we've got to be careful of is, that
this is not just a Queanbeyan issue.

"This is a Queanbeyan, Palerang, South Coast, Riverina and god
knows how many more other houses across the NSW are affected."

Mr Barilaro said he has written to the Premier and the relevant
federal minister, Senator Eric Abetz.

"He [Senator Abetz] had assured me in his response that he wanted
to see the ACT and NSW government work closely together on the
matter to ensure a consistent approach so I'm confident that
that's the case," he said.

Federal member for Eden-Monaro Peter Hendy said the presence of Mr
Fluffy asbestos in homes is regarded as a serious bipartisan
issue.

"People shouldn't panic, the issue is being dealt with
methodically," he said.

"The various jurisdictions are talking about the issue, it's on
their radar and I hope cooperatively we'll be able to deal with
the issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Forces Closure of School
---------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that Western Australia's largest public high
school was forced to close in late July after asbestos residue was
discovered during demolition work.  Parents were asked to keep
students of Willetton Senior High School in Perth at home while
tests are carried out.  The school has since advised parents it
would remain closed for the rest of the week and classes would be
conducted online.

The Education Department notified parents of the closure late via
SMS and email.  About 1,800 students are enrolled at the school
and they had been due to return for the start of term three.

Department spokesman David Axworthy said while the residue appears
to be contained to one storeroom, teachers said they may have seen
similar materials on other parts of the premises.  He told ABC
Local Radio the entire school is now being checked to ensure
students are kept safe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims' Family Pleas Co-Workers to Come Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Leeson, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that the
devastated family of a man in Hull, England, who died from
asbestos-related cancer just weeks after he was diagnosed are
appealing for his former colleagues to come forward.

Thomas Patterson, nicknamed Floyd, died in March last year, after
being diagnosed with mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos
decades ago. He was 57.

Mr Patterson, of Orchard Park, worked for industrial cleaners GBI
Industrial Services Limited, Caird Industrial Services Limited And
Colt Industrial Services Limited -- companies that were all based
in Witty Street, Hull, between 1987 and 1995. Throughout his
career, it is believed he came into contact with asbestos.

His daughter, Donna, who lives in Hull said: "My dad was never ill
and had always gone to work without fail.

"When he became ill he just thought he was suffering from a cold
at first. However, he was forced to come home from work one day in
January last year and from then on our lives changed. It was the
worst day of my life and the illness took hold very fast.

"We were devastated to find out that his illness was probably
caused by simply going to work every day over the years.

"We would like to urge anyone who knew or worked with our dad to
come forward with any information to help us seek justice for
him."

Mr Patterson's children, Dale, Laura and Donna, have instructed
industrial illness lawyers at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors to
investigate where their father was exposed to asbestos and whether
more could have been done to protect him at work.

Mr Patterson first noticed he was becoming out of breath in July
2012 but thought he was just suffering from a virus.

However, by January 2013 his condition had got so bad he could no
longer work and needed care from his family.

By the time Mr Paterson was diagnosed with mesothelioma, it was
too late to treat him.

Dale had just moved to Australia to work in the week before his
father's illness became severe and had to fly back to the UK to
look after him in his final weeks.

Mark Aldridge, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, representing the Patterson family, said: "Mesothelioma
is an aggressive and incurable cancer that causes so much distress
for victims such as Thomas and their families, who worked in
industries where they were regularly exposed to asbestos.

"Unfortunately, Thomas's condition was diagnosed very late and he
wasn't able to provide us with all the details of his full work
history, so we need his former colleagues to help to answer the
many questions his family have about his exposure and the working
conditions he endured, as well as what measures, if any, were in
place to protect employees at these firms."

The family are now urging anyone with information about the
working conditions at GBI Industrial Services Limited, Caird
Industrial Services Limited or Colt Industrial Services Limited to
contact Mark Aldridge at Irwin Mitchell on 0113 3946757.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Elementary Schools Removed Fibro Tiles
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Goudreau, writing for MassLive.com, reported that a
series of school summer repair and replacement projects are
currently underway at elementary schools throughout West
Springfield, in Massachusetts, one of which includes the removal
and replacement of decades old floor tiling projects that may have
been constructed with asbestos.

"The tiles themselves may not have asbestos but the mastic may
have asbestos," said Kevin McQuillan, assistant superintendent of
schools. "If either of those tested positive then we'd have to do
an asbestos removal project."

There are no concerns related to public health for the floor
tiling removal projects, which are occurring at Mittineague
Elementary School, John R. Fausey Elementary, Tatham Elementary,
and Coburn Elementary School, he said.

The project consists of two phases, he said. The first stage
consists of removal of the old floor and tiles for a cost of
roughly $80,000. The second stage will focus on putting on the
replacement floor tiling for $83,000.

"We try to do as much as possible when the kids are not there," he
said. "Even in the summer, we're working around summer programs."

The Coburn School has summer programs so the school department has
about three weeks to work with, he said.  The department has
completed removing tile that may have contained asbestos at three
out of four elementary schools, he said, adding that the floor
tiling contractor will begin putting in new tiles.

Coburn School was constructed in the 1920s and John R. Ashley and
Tatham School were built in the 1950s. Some of the buildings may
still have original floor tiling, he said.

"The work at Coburn School is going to have to wait until their
summer program finishes up in the end of July," he said. "But they
are doing other work there including constructing a new library
space because they had to give up the old library space to an
additional classroom."

Other summer repair and construction projects include replacements
to the fire alarms at Memorial and Ashley Elementary schools, and
plumbing repairs in the boy's bathroom on the ground floor of
Coburn School, he said.

The School Department is also working with the Department of
Public Works to finalize plans for repaving the driveway at the
Middle School, said McQuillan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Apartment Residents Evacuated Due to Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aakanksha Jaiswal, writing for The Boar, reported that
construction workers were evacuated from Westwood accommodation,
in the University of Warwick, due to the release of asbestos
fibres into the air.

Deeley Construction was carrying out renovation work when the
incident occurred. The potentially hazardous asbestos fibres were
released when a furniture removal firm blasted through desks
attached to the walls.

The site was evacuated as soon as the matter was reported and the
issue has been referred to the Health and Safety Executive.
One of the workers, who talked to Coventry Evening Telegraph,
reported that their clothes had been incinerated as a
precautionary measure.

He said: "I am worried -- you don't know what the long-term
effects will be. We're all going to be sent letters to notify our
doctors that we've been exposed to asbestos.

"We all know it's a killer, and you don't know if it will start to
affect you in 30 years' time."

A University representative told the Boar: "The work you refer to
is the refurbishment of residences in Westwood.  The buildings are
from a period when asbestos was commonly used.

"We had a full asbestos survey of that building and were aware of
where all the asbestos was/is safety contained within its
structure. The contractor on site, Deeley, was given all the
details and they have not encountered any new asbestos.

"Deeley have kept us informed of this issue and we are confident
that they will deal with the problem and complete the work as
planned."

A statement from Deeley Construction, a Coventry based
construction company, supported the University's statement: "We
were aware there was asbestos in some parts of the buildings.

"We had hired a removal firm to move furniture. It subsequently
transpired that some of that furniture was fixed to walls which
contained asbestos and once that was reported to us, work was
stopped on that building and the site closed.

"Testing is now being carried out and the facts will be reported
to the Health and Safety Executive well within the permitted time
frame.

"Deeley is a renowned and responsible construction company that
has safety at the forefront of all its operations.

"We have fully communicated the situation with the University and
we are working together to remedy the situation."

Warwick Accommodation had begun the process of taking action
against asbestos in university-managed accommodation in November
last year following a report in the Boar on the matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Retained Jurisdiction Over Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana federal court
has retained jurisdiction over an asbestos case, finding that a
magistrate judge did not err when he concluded that the plaintiff
had no chance of recovery against in-state executive officers.

In the July 16 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana said that without those claims, complete
diversity between the plaintiff and the defendant existed, making
remand to state court improper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council to Spend Extra After Fibro Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reported that the council in Burnside, Australia, has
discovered asbestos during a multi-million dollar upgrade of
Burnside Swimming Centre.  The council voted on July 22 to
increase the $5.9 million budget for the Hazelwood Park swimming
centre upgrade by $917,000, due in part to the asbestos problem.

In a report to the council, project manager DesignInc said
"significant quantities" of asbestos had been found "throughout
the site" since work started in February.

The asbestos was not identified on official registers.

"It is important to note that because of the nature of dealing
with asbestos, there will be a number of time delays with
associated costs," the report stated.

However, Burnside Mayor David Parkin still believed the pool would
reopen by December.

"I still believe we're on track as far as I know," Mr Parkin said.
He said no swimmers had been exposed to asbestos at the pool,
which opened in 1966.

Burnside Council spokeswoman Jenny Barrett said "all identified
asbestos" had been removed from the site.

DesignInc's report also claimed "inadequate waterproofing" in the
entrance, toilets and other wet areas had been discovered and some
floors and columns would need to be replaced.

Cr Jane Davey called for a staff report on whether the council
could seek compensation from the building company which last
redeveloped the pool in 1996 or from the company which prepared
the tender for this year's works.

"It might be there is some liability that's not with us," Cr Davey
told the meeting.

"This is almost a million dollars -- it's a lot and we shouldn't
give it away."

The extra capital expenditure will result in $52,000 more in
interest payments.

Each year, about 100,000 people use the pool, officially known as
George Bolton Swimming Centre.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Prospect School
----------------------------------------------------
Alex Vitale, writing for WTNH.com, reported that an asbestos
problem has closed an area middle school for the summer.

Long River middle school in Prospect, Connecticut, is closed for
the remainder of the summer after asbestos was found built up in
old tiles and glue.

"All asbestos discovered was nonfriable (incapable of releasing
fibers to the air from hand-pressure). In an abundance of caution,
our asbestos consultant, an accredited environmental consulting
firm, took numerous air samples throughout the school to confirm
the findings. All samples were analyzed and all were non-detect
for asbestos." said Superintendent of Schools Tim James.

The school is working to get rid of the problem areas before the
school year begins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County's Fibro Docket Lightens
-------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the crowded asbestos docket in Madison County, Ill., saw a
drop of more than 100 new asbestos case filings so far this year,
which some attorneys attribute to the decrease of lung cancer
cases.

As of June 30, Madison County has seen 656 new cases filed in its
asbestos docket, a drop from last year's record of 793 mid-year
filings.  If the pace of cases filed so far this year, the
nation's busiest asbestos docket will be down by approximately 20
percent over last year's record-setting figure of 1,678.

This may come as a surprise considering Madison County's docket
has doubled in the last four years and tripled in the last seven.
It has been called the nation's epicenter of asbestos litigation
by the American Tort Reform Foundation, which has often listed the
county on its yearly "Judicial Hellholes" list.

One significant driving factor of the asbestos docket's increase
in recent years has been the rise in lung cancer claims.

Until last year, the vast majority of asbestos claims brought in
Madison County were on behalf of victims of mesothelioma, a deadly
asbestos-related cancer in the lining of the lungs. But last year
the number of lung cancer cases spiked, making up approximately 45
percent of the caseload, or 329 lung cancer claims at mid-year.

Of the new filings, 194 were lung cancer cases, or 30 percent of
the new cases, and 452 were mesothelioma claims.

The increase in lung cancer cases came after an advanced trial
setting system that provided advantage to the three largest
asbestos firms -- Simmons, Gori and Julian and Goldenberg -- was
eliminated. That change provided opportunity for other firms,
local and national.

After changes were made to the trial settings, the New York based-
Napoli firm opened an office in Madison County in 2012. Just one
year later, the firm dominated the docket, representing roughly 32
percent of the new case filings. Of those 525 cases, more than 90
percent of those cases were lung cancer claims.

So far this year, however, the firm has filed about 19 percent of
the total filings, or about 124 new cases.

Plaintiff attorney Patrick Haines of the Napoli firm agreed his
firm files a larger number of lung cancer cases than other
asbestos plaintiffs' firms.

"I hate to take the credit, and/or the blame, for the filing rate,
but I think that's for our lower filing rate," Haines said of the
decrease in new lung cancer cases.

"When our rates go down, naturally the number of lung cancer cases
will go down," he added.

Haines provided an explanation for the decrease, saying the firm
obtained an influx of lung cancer cases all at once a few years
ago, resulting in a mass lung cancer filing last year.

Since then, the firm has been steadily rejecting and selecting
which claims the firm will represent. He explained that the
initial wave of work is complete, allowing for a drop in filing
rates.

"We chewed through that work that was all there in one chunk," he
said.

Haines explained that the firm continues to receive cases and will
continue to file new cases at a fairly consistent, but slower,
rate -- thus, returning the filing rate to the "baseline."  He
added that the lung cancer rates should look more like it did two
years ago rather than the lung cancer-heavy numbers last year
offered.

Haines said he doesn't expect another wave of lung cancer cases to
come in the future, but didn't rule out the possibility.

"I would see last year as more of an aberration rather than a
trend," he said. "But the crystal ball can only go so far."

Haines said Napoli's numbers have also decreased as the firm files
more and more cases in other dockets.

Defense attorney Kent Plotner of the Heyl Royster law firm said
defense firms have noticed there wasn't a "large influx" of
filings compared to last year and agreed that it could be
attributed to the decline in new lung cancer cases.

He added that there must have been an inventory of lung cancer
cases filed all at once in previous years, and since then law
firms have balanced out, making only routine filings.

Defense attorney Brian Huelsmann of HeplerBroom wasn't as
convinced that the docket was improving. He noted that despite the
drop from last year's numbers, roughly 25 percent of all asbestos
cases field in Madison County are still lung cancer cases.  He
added that while Napoli boasts less filings this year, its
percentage of lung cancer cases is significantly higher than its
competitors as Simmons and Moni continue to file a large majority
of mesothelioma claims.

Furthermore, Plotner pointed out that there continues to be more
lung cancer cases set for trial than in years past.

Despite the rise in lung cancer cases set for trial, the limited
number of available trial slots in the crowded docket could
encourage plaintiffs to take their cases elsewhere, he added.

Huelsmann explained that Madison County has a reputation for
congestion in its asbestos docket as trial slots fill up.

According to a docket analysis, there have been 972 first time
trial settings and 855 cases continued to new trial settings for
2014, with some cases continued multiple times.

In other words, there have already been 1700 trial settings for
this year.

Looking forward, the court has already established 701 new trial
settings for 2015 with 190 cases continued from this year.

Furthermore, there are already 100 new trial settings for 2016.

Huelsmann added that approximately 20 to 50 asbestos cases are set
for trial each week, meaning there are more cases set for trial
than there are judges in Madison County.

As a result, those numbers might be discouraging for plaintiffs
when choosing a docket for their asbestos cases.

He added that hypothetically speaking, it could take four to five
years to conclude every case currently on the asbestos docket if
no more new cases were accepted.

Additionally, Huelsmann said the decrease in new filings could
also be attributed to the nine straight defense verdicts in
Madison County since 2004, which is discouraging for plaintiffs.

"Madison County jurors are not going to be handing out money left
and right as plaintiffs can't prove their case," he said.

While there appears to be a decrease in total filings, not much
has changed regarding location of the plaintiff.

Numbers show that 90 percent, or 590, new case filings come from
states other than Illinois, which is consistent with Madison
County's well-established pattern.

Of the 10 percent, or 66, cases filed by Illinois residents, only
three were actual Madison County residents.

Plotner agreed that there "still continues to be a
disproportionate number of out-of-state cases being filed in
Madison County.

In total, there were 452 mesothelioma cases, 194 lung cancer cases
and 11 other-illness cases.

However, Huelsmann said that while the numbers are less than
previous years so far, the 656 new cases still puts Madison County
on pace to reach more than 1,200 cases by the end of the year,
which still doubles the numbers from 2004 to 2008

"So while they're not at the historic record numbers," he said, "I
anticipate we will still be in the top five larges filings."

In years past, records show there were 325 cases filed in 2006;
455 cases in 2007; 659 cases in 2008; 814 in 2009; 752 in 2010;
953 in 2011 and 1,563 in 2012.

Ultimately, Plotner concluded that it is too early to tell what
the explanation is attributable to the drop in new asbestos
filings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Berwick Council Approves Fibro Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Pechenik, writing for Sea Coast Online, reported that the
town council in South Berwick, Maine, approved the expenditure for
the removal of asbestos tiles from a condemned home.

Purchase of a new fire truck and asbestos mitigation from the Day
house topped the agenda of the Town Council.

During the meeting, councilors approved the expenditure of up to
$12,000, to be taken from the town's recreational facilities
account, for the removal of asbestos tiles from the condemned,
residential home situated on the Day property.

Located on Agamenticus Road, the Day property was sold to the town
by resident Mary Day for $150,000 in 2003. The property was
originally considered as a possible site for a new town library.

However, this plan was scuttled when the former St. Michael's
Church on Young Street was transformed into the new library.

In 2009, the council deferred on whether to demolish or save the
Day house until completion of a market analysis of the structure.

At the July 22 meeting, however, Councilor Jean Demetracopoulos
indicated that the future of the house was still "undetermined."

However, she stated that, in her view, "the house is uninhabitable
and should come down."

Also during the meeting, the town council approved expenditure of
$397,600 for the purchase of new fire engine pumper truck for the
Fire Department.

The 2003 vehicle, which is being purchased from Marion Body Works
of Wisconsin, has 14,000 miles and was described by Town Manager
Perry Ellsworth as "the best of all opportunities."

The Town Council approved Ellsworth's financing plan of a $200,000
down payment on the vehicle, with the rest of the funds financed
at approximately 3 percent interest over a seven-year term.

According to the town manager, this would amount to a $30,000
annual payment for the fire truck. The first payment would be made
Aug. 1, 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chester City Council Debates Fibro Abatement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Spitler, writing for The Herald Tribune, reported that it
took roughly 40 minutes for the Chester City Council, in England,
to work through its agenda, the majority of which was spent
discussing an asbestos abatement bid for a property on State
Street.

The property in question, located at 1945 State St., is privately
owned, but is mortgaged. It is located at the corner of State
Street and Swanwick Street across from Chester High School.

"We're wanting to have the building torn down because No. 1, it's
not safe and No. 2, it's an eyesore," said Chester Mayor Tom Page.
The council debated over whether to accept the low bid of $21,776
from A&A Abatement of Du Quoin for the asbestos removal or pursue
a bid for demolition.

"We've seen this before," said Chester Alderwoman Nancy Crossland.
"We're not in the real estate business and how we recoup the money
on this will be tricky."

City Attorney Jeff Kerkhover said someone is interested in the
property.

"I don't think you'll have anyone close to paying what we've
invested in it," he said.

The council later voted to accept A&A's bid, with the money being
filed as a lien against the property.

"It seems like we keep getting stuck with these properties and
it's frustrating," Crossland said.

The council also approved a $3,700 proposal from Quality Testing
and Engineering for core samples at the location of the former
Texaco station that was demolished July 15 and 16.

The samples are to test the soil at the corner of Opdyke and State
streets to determine if it is environmentally compliant for the
upcoming project to add a right turn lane for truck traffic.

"From what I understand, they're going to test the soil and make
sure it's good to go," Page said.

Alderman Dan Ohlau asked the council what would happen if the
testing found any problems and was told the city would be
responsible for cleaning up any issues.

In other new business, the council approved the installation of a
low-level alarm for the water tower located at Chester Grade
School.

"If the water tower goes down, everybody loses water pressure,"
said Chester Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Tim Crow. "I feel
this is very essential for the water system because we're not
manning it 24 hours a day."

Crow said the alarm includes an automatic dialer at the plant,
which sends out an automated message if the alarm goes off.
The Chester Police Department's dispatch center will have the top
priority on the phone list, followed by Crow.

The council was also set to discuss changes to Skateland's hours
of operation, but Chester Recreation Director Patti Carter was
unable to attend the meeting and that item was postponed as a
result.

During the public comment section of the meeting, a city resident
asked the council about the stray cats in town.

"We don't have a policy on stray cats yet," Page said. "(Police
Chief) Ryan (Coffey) and I have had discussions on the matter and
we hope to have a resolution soon."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Serial Fibro Dumper to Pay Fines Until 2072
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamelle Wells, writing for ABC News, reported that contractor who
dumped eight truckloads of hazardous waste containing asbestos on
residential land could be paying off fines for similar offences
beyond 2072, a Sydney court has heard.

Dib Hanna, 38, has dozens of criminal convictions and more than 20
fines for illegally dumping building material across Sydney.

In 2013, he was given a three-month suspended jail sentence and
good behaviour bond for contempt of a court order to stop
illegally dumping hazardous material.

The waste removal contractor is paying off hundreds of thousands
of dollars in fines at a rate of $300 a month through the New
South Wales Debt Recovery Office.  It is estimated the fines will
not be paid off until 2072, when Hanna is aged in his 90s.

Hanna faced the NSW Land and Environment Court to be sentenced for
dumping 80 tonnes, or eight truckloads, of building material
containing asbestos on a residential land site at Picnic Point
over the 2012 Easter holidays.  He broke into the site and dumped
waste that included metal, glass and material containing asbestos.

The dumping was caught on CCTV cameras and Hanna later pleaded
guilty to four charges.  He told the court he could not recall
where the material he dumped at Picnic Point came from.  He said
someone showed him where to put it but he could not remember who.

Hanna said he was only paid a few hundred dollars for each load of
building waste he transported and tip fees absorbed most of that
money.

The contractor said he was "sorry" and that he had health issues
related to a stroke last year.

Hanna has 'Damascus-like conversion' in witness box

Prosecutor Michael Wright said Hanna's actions were brazen and
deliberate, and the consequences for the land owners -- a couple
who planned to build on the land -- were serious.  He called for a
strong deterrent, given Hanna's prior convictions for dumping and
the public health risks of dumping asbestos.

"These offences were deliberate and opportunistic in nature," he
said.

"He has a very long history of offending."

Mr Wright added: "He will be paying fines until 2072."

He noted that under current legislation in NSW, a jail sentence
was not available for Hanna's Picnic Point dumping offences but he
could be fined up to $250,000.

Defence lawyer Stephen Stanton said Hanna had experienced a
"Damascus-like conversion" in the witness box and was remorseful
for his crimes.  He called on the judge to "show mercy" and
mentioned his client's serious health problems.

But Justice Brian Preston questioned if Hanna's remorse is
genuine, noting that he kept reoffending.  The judge reserved his
decision to a later date.

Hanna made no comment outside court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Probes Disposal of Hazardous Material
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Prisk, writing for Central Western Daily, reported that the
New South Wales, Australia Environmental Protection Authority is
investigating the transportation and disposal of asbestos from a
Summer Street building site following reports contractors may not
have followed protocol when dealing with the hazardous material.

EPA representatives will focus on the transportation and disposal
of construction and demolition waste from the Summer Centre
shopping centre precinct, to a site on Clergate Road.

"Officers conducted a preliminary site inspection of the Summer
Street premises following a complaint from a community member," an
EPA spokesperson said.

"The EPA will continue to keep Orange City Council and the
community informed of its investigation and encourages anyone with
information about this matter to contact the EPA's environment
line on 131 555."

The spokesperson did not issue any warnings about the site or the
route used to transport the material.

Fire Brigade Employees Union country organiser Greg Mitchell
welcomed the investigation.

"I think it wasn't removed according to correct procedure . . .
and, if not, all of the businesses in the area could be
contaminated," he said.

"It's very dangerous material."

Mr Mitchell said he had spoken with firefighters at the Orange
station, which is opposite the building site, about the possible
dangers, and warned them to be cautious about coming into contact
with material, including dirt and air-borne particles, from the
vicinity of the site.

Mr Mitchell said he would have "grave concerns" for the
firefighters' safety if they came in contact with the hazardous
material.

Central West Community Alliance (CWCA) members have also expressed
their concern at the possibility that hazardous material was
incorrectly removed from the Summer Street site.

CWCA conveners Joe Maric and Bernard Fitzsimon said they wanted
more transparency when it came to the identification, removal and
transportation of asbestos from building sites.

Mr Maric said he wanted the area monitored to see if there were
any asbestos particles in the air and he planned to doorknock
nearby residents and businesses to confirm who was in the area at
the time the material was removed.

A resident who lives near the building site contacted the Central
Western Daily expressing her concern over the way the asbestos was
removed and transported.  As a result of her concerns the woman
said she and her family would avoid the area until they could be
assured all protocols had been adhered to.

A WorkCover spokesperson said the organisation had been notified,
by the licensed asbestos removalists, that the asbestos had been
removed from the Summer Street site prior to demolition of the
remainder of the building.

"A WorkCover inspector has visited the site, conducted a visual
inspection and is satisfied with the work health and safety
systems in place to manage the safe removal of asbestos containing
material from the site," the spokesperson said.

Orange City Council spokesman Nick Redmond it was up to WorkCover
to investigate any concerns about the site.

"As it is a formal work site WorkCover is the lead agency and
council takes a back seat," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Puts State Scrutiny on Site Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------
Marta Jewson, writing for SCTimes, reported that the cleanup
of debris in Roosevelt Education Center, Minnesota, will have
the attention of both the state's health department and pollution
control agency, due to the amount of asbestos in the almost
95-year-old building.

"With the state regulations, they consider the whole site to be
potentially contaminated," Mike Adair said. Adair is president of
Legacy Services Corp., which will manage the demolition and
cleanup at the school destroyed by fire in mid-June.

The Minnesota Department of Health regulates such projects if
there is "at least 160 square feet, 260 linear feet or 35 cubic
feet of friable asbestos-containing material being removed,"
according to Industrial Hygienist 3 Bruce Lange.

Adair says with the amount of tile in the crumbled school, it
likely exceeds that threshold. The company also will have to
comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations for
transporting and disposing of the rubble.

Friable asbestos is asbestos that can be pulverized under hand
pressure. The danger comes in the dust -- the asbestos fibers may
cause serious health problems if they become trapped in the lungs
or body tissue.

As a result of increased incidences of health issues associated
with asbestos exposure, including lung cancer and mesothelioma,
the government has strict rules associated with its cleanup and
disposal. The product was often used in insulation and as a fire
retardant before its risks were known. It also can be found in
some floor and ceiling tiles and some adhesives.

The business of demolition, cleanup

"It's a very regulated business in which we work directly with the
MPCA," Adair said.

Legacy is not certified to perform the cleanup task, but the
company is allowed to subcontract the work to a company that is
certified with the state health department. Adair says he will be
working with Twell Environmental Inc. The company is certified
through March 2015, according to the department of health's
website.

St. Cloud school district administrators have recommended awarding
the demolition project to Legacy for $256,500. That contract will
be up for approval at the board meeting.

"All of the waste will go to a special landfill, including non-
asbestos materials just because there's a chance (of
contamination)," Adair said.

State regulations require all workers to be trained in asbestos
removal, Lange says. That means everyone from the worker operating
the excavator to the supervisor on site must be certified by the
department of health.

No regulations for sitting debris

The Roosevelt rubble has sat for more than five weeks through
rain, sun and temperatures approaching 100 degrees.

Former Benton County Commissioner Dick Soyka said his son lives
near Roosevelt, and he has concerns about visiting him.

"I'm concerned about asbestos blowing into the wind," Soyka said.
"I'm concerned about breathing that stuff, and it just lays
there."

There are no regulations from the health department or MPCA
regarding a partially demolished building as it sits. The
demolition was done as part of the firefighting effort.

"The department of health regulations really kick in when removal
starts," Lange said. "We don't have any regulations that start
with a pile laying there."

"When it's being exposed to the elements, there is potential that
asbestos fibers can be released into the air," Lange said. "That
being said . . . when asbestos fibers are wet, they don't get
airborne," he said. "It's difficult to make them airborne."

"As long as the pipe insulation is wet and sitting there, the risk
of exposure is probably low," he said. "The longer it sits there
and starts to dry out potentially" the risk of exposure increases,
he said.

Adair says the risk of exposure is relatively low because no one
is being allowed on the site, thus limiting disturbances that may
propel asbestos fibers into the air. He also said the floor tile
and adhesive in the building are less friable in general than some
other products containing asbestos. And much of the floor tile is
covered by the fallen roofing and walls, which would limit the
potential for it to be picked up by the wind.

Work to start soon

The removal will likely start within the first two weeks of
August. Legacy is securing permits from the MPCA and other
agencies and getting equipment to the site.

Lange said the department of health has no limit on how long the
debris can sit there.

Adair says when workers are removing the rubble it will be put
into lined dump trucks and taken to an Environmental Protection
Agency-registered landfill. They will even have limits on when
they can transport the debris based on wind speed.

The cleanup should take two to three weeks, barring any severe
weather, Adair said.

As with any construction project, Adair says there will be the
potential for dust while removal is occurring, though the wetting
of material during removal is meant to minimize dust.  Should
there be any violation, Lange says both the school district and
contractor can end up on the hook.

"It's the duty of the contracting entity, basically the school
district, to make sure the contractor they're hiring to do this
work is properly credentialed," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trades Union Forced ACT Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Clisby, writing for The Age, reported that the Hawke
government was forced to fund the removal of deadly asbestos from
buildings in Canberra more by the threat of trade union industrial
action than by health concerns, newly released documents show.

Cabinet-in-confidence documents released by the National Archives
show the Trades and Labour Council of the ACT was already calling
for action on Mr Fluffy asbestos at the same time it was picketing
the National Library in 1983.

The documents also show the ACT Administration was inadequately
prepared to deal with the loose-fill asbestos insulation crisis
that would hit at the end of the decade.

The Hawke government documents, which relate to the decision to
fund the asbestos removal from the library and two schools,
included an ultimatum sent by the union to the first asbestos
working party in the ACT.

The union also took out an advertisement in The Canberra Times
warning "householders, prospective buyers and renovators" about
deadly brown asbestos fluff insulation two months later.

In the ultimatum secretary Peter O'Dea claimed the health of
workers exposed to the asbestos was not being taken seriously and
that the government continued to permit the use of asbestos in the
ACT "fully knowing the health implications".

But the most damning aspect of the inquiry, he said, was that the
casualties of exposure to asbestos "through government and
departmental negligence" were not to be considered.

"It can do nothing for those who due to having built, worked or
lived in buildings with asbestos have developed cancer of the
lungs, larynx or stomach and/or breathing disorders," Mr O'Dea
said.

The council was also angry that the Commonwealth, through the
National Capital Development Commission, continued to approve the
use of asbestos despite its knowledge the substance was dangerous
to people's health.

Mr O'Dea also writes that the working party had no powers to
investigate asbestos in non-government buildings and laments that
no one is concerned for the safety and care of people living in
homes laden with asbestos.

"Who will pick up the tab for its removal? We have been informed
that at least 800 such homes have already been identified," he
said.

The cabinet-in-confidence documents show asbestos was removed from
the National Library in 1984 because the Hawke government was
concerned about the threat of significant industrial action, not
the health implications.

The Trades and Labour Council had picketed the library for about
three months over the issue in 1983 which caused inconvenience to
users and threatened the collection.

The council wanted the asbestos removed but the government's first
investigation showed there was no health threat to workers and no
action was taken.

The National Archives papers show the government approved $1.2
million in funding because of the in-principle agreement given to
the union to end the picketing of the library.

The union's list of demands included that the government advertise
the dangers of asbestos insulation in private dwellings.

Documents submitted to cabinet request urgent action because of
the threat of significant industrial disruption if a decision on
expenditure was not made.

"Any delays or repudiation of that agreement now would be seen by
the TLC as a breach of faith and it is anticipated that extensive
and strong industrial action would be certain," a submission by
ministers, including Territories Minister Tom Uren, said.

The Hawke government was also concerned about the proposal
creating a precedent for asbestos removal from other Commonwealth
buildings and facilities. Several departments argued strongly for
a delay until all buildings in the territory could be assessed.

Expert advice to cabinet from the Commonwealth Institute of Health
said there was no significant health risk from the presence of
asbestos in the library and removal of it was not supported.

However this was at odds with the independent report compiled by
Kevin Purse and Ian Furness of the South Australian Asbestos
Advisory Committee that was scathing of the ACT's "total absence
of legislative and ancillary provisions concerning all aspects of
asbestos usage, control and removal".  They said historically the
hazards posed by airborne asbestos dust had been known as far back
as 1918 but had been largely neglected.

"Despite this, legislative provisions have been totally lacking as
in the case of the ACT or not implemented as has been the case in
other states," they said.

"Together with poor management practices this has resulted in
workers being subjected to totally unwarranted health hazards."

Former Hawke government adviser Peter Conway said at the time
there had been a realisation asbestos in the territory was going
to be an issue.

"I think it was a growing awareness that we had a problem and had
to do something about it," Mr Conway said.

The former chair of the first ACT Asbestos Working Party, Ben
Selinger, says the National Library was the first attempt to deal
with asbestos in the ACT.

"We had no regulations, no way of dealing with it except for
trying to find another jurisdiction whose rules and regs we could
just use," Dr Selinger said.

Dr Selinger, who was a reader in chemistry at the Australian
National University, said it was the union that forced the
government to take action on the issue.

"They had placards saying One Fibre Kills and so on which were
wrong, but they got the public onside, they got things moving and
Tommy Uren, who was the minister, said 'Look, get me out of this
hole. I want to see something done'," he said.

"Like most campaigns if you want to get something done you
overstate it and they certainly did that."

Dr Selinger said he doesn't know how much was publicly known about
asbestos at the time but certainly within scientific and
regulatory authorities a "lot was known".

"Asbestos has been an issue since Roman times," he said.

"By post war its effects, like smoking, were pretty well
established but enthusiasm for doing something about it was pretty
low."

Dr Selinger said the asbestos working party he chaired had been
disbanded after a few years and the incoming working party dealt
with the issue of loose-fill asbestos in residential properties.

"The Commonwealth was running the ACT, this was a standard
material that was authorised to be used, so most people then quite
naturally assumed it was fine," he said.

The removal of asbestos from the National Library paved the way
for new asbestos guidelines for the ACT, the first ACT Asbestos
Advisory Committee, the ACT Asbestos Branch and the loose-fill
insulation removal program.

The ACT Administration wrote to householders in the ACT about the
Mr Fluffy loose-fill insulation in 1987 when it believed that up
to 8000 houses could have been affected.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Every Exposure" Theory Rejected in La. Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Louisiana federal judge has rejected the "every exposure"
theory in an asbestos lawsuit and granted summary judgment to four
defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs' expert's testimony is
"internally inconsistent."

Judge Tom Stagg delivered the July 14 opinion in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Defendants CertainTeed Corporation, Beazer East, Inc., Georgia
Pacific LLC and Union Carbide Corporation filed separate motions
for summary judgment.  Additionally, CertainTeed, Beazer and
Georgia Pacific filed separate Daubert motions seeking to exclude
the testimony of the plaintiffs' causation expert Dr. David
Schwartz.

Tina Davidson, Kristen Davidson and Kathryn Davidson filed the
wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of William Cleve Davidson, who
was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010 and died in 2011.

In response to the claims, the defendants filed Daubert motions to
exclude Schwartz's testimony relying on the every exposure theory.

Schwartz argued that each and every asbestos exposure contributed
to Davidson's injury.

However, in his reports, Schwartz also admitted that he does not
believe that every single asbestos fiber contributes to the
development of mesothelioma, explaining that it is a dose-related
disease.

In other words, the more someone is exposed to asbestos, the
greater the risk for developing an asbestos-related disease.

When asked during a March 2011 deposition if "every single
exposure to asbestos above background is a substantial
contributing factor to the cause of mesothelioma," Schwartz
testified that he "couldn't point to any specific cause as being
the cause of mesothelioma."

However, in a second deposition in June 2011, Schwartz
inconsistently testified that there is no way to know which
exposures caused mesothelioma and which ones did not, meaning the
every exposure theory must include all asbestos exposures as
causation, the defendants argued.  Then he added that he would
have to know the frequency, duration and proximity of a particular
asbestos exposure in order to determine whether it is
"substantial" or not.

The defendants objected to Schwartz's testimony, arguing that the
every exposure theory does not meet the standards of admissibility
according to Daubert.

They also argued that the theory undermines the substantial factor
test of causation that applies to cases alleging asbestos-related
injuries.

In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that the trial judge is
required to act as a gatekeeper to ensure all expert testimony "is
not only relevant, but reliable."

An expert's testimony must first be reliable, meaning the
reasoning and methodology must be valid.

Furthermore, the testimony must also be relevant and assist the
trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining some
fact at issue in the case.

The defendants argued that the every exposure theory is
inappropriate because it is unreliable, cannot be tested, has no
known rate of error and is mere speculation.

Staggs agreed with the defendants' assessment, stating the every
exposure theory "is not testable, and consequently cannot have an
error rate, thus failing to satisfy two Daubert factors."

Furthermore, he explained that the court could not find any data
that Schwartz relied on that would show that any particular
defendant's product actually caused Davidson to develop
mesothelioma.

Staggs wrote that Schwartz's testimony is "internally
inconsistent," because he could not specifically identify any
particular defendant's product as having caused Davidson's
mesothelioma, yet he concludes that every exposure was a
substantial contributing factor.

As a result, Staggs held that Schwartz's testimony that every
asbestos exposure contributed to the decedent's mesothelioma is
inadmissible.

Regardless of the Daubert ruling, the defendants further argued
that Schwartz's testimony should be precluded because it
undermines Louisiana law on causation in asbestos cases.

According to Louisiana law, a plaintiff in an asbestos case "must
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, he was exposed to
asbestos and he received an injury substantially caused by that
exposure," they said.

Specifically, the defendants argued that the every exposure theory
conflicts with the substantial factor causation test.

Staggs agreed, holding that "if a plaintiff could establish
causation with the every exposure theory, then every exposure to
asbestos would be deemed a substantial factor, no matter the
'frequency, duration and proximity of exposure,' all of which are
factors that Dr. Schwartz has testified are relevant to
determining causation."

Staggs wrote that because Schwartz's testimony regarding the every
exposure theory was deemed inadmissible, the question that stands
is whether the plaintiffs can create a genuine dispute of material
fact as to causation without his expert testimony. He concluded
that they cannot.

Expert testimony is required to establish causation in asbestos
cases and without Schwartz, the plaintiffs are left without any
expert testimony supporting their causation allegations, he
explained.

Therefore, they cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact
as to causation.

Staggs also dismissed the third-party complaints filed by
CertainTeed, Beazer and Georgia Pacific against the Celotex
Asbestos Settlement Trust and the Claims Resolution Management
Corporation. The complaints were filed to seek indemnity in the
event that the defendants were found liable to the plaintiffs.

Because summary judgment was granted for each defendant, the
third-party complaints are considered moot and are therefore
dismissed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Oversees Demolition of Contaminated Bldg
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Brecher, writing for WGRZ.com, reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency began its demolition of an
asbestos-contaminated building in Lockport, New York.

The abandoned Liberty Plant Maintenance facility on Mill Street
was discovered to have asbestos in 2012.  Because the abandoned is
unstable, asbestos workers could not go inside, and it had to be
demolished.

Two years ago, the EPA started the process by spraying chemicals
that would prevent asbestos from going airborne.  Since then, the
agency has negotiated with the property owner to move forward with
taking the building down.

"There are certain areas of the building where we know the
asbestos is, and any debris that gets co-mingled with that will
certainly go out as asbestos-contaminated," said Terry Kish, EPA
on-scene coordinator. "There are other areas of the building where
we know there is very little asbestos, and some of that debris can
be reused as back-fill that will be processed, ground up, and used
to fill in the basement when the project is over."

The biggest concern remains the safety of neighbors on Chapel
Street.

To protect them, Kish says air check locations placed around the
building monitor dust levels in the air, and spraying water as
pieces of the building come down helps keep that airborne dust to
a minimum.

The Liberty plant opened in the 1920s and operated for about 40
years.  It used to generate steam and electricity for a former
paper industry across the street.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Cites Lawyer for Permitting Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Green, writing for NorthJersey.com, reported that the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has issued a
violation to a lawyer after spending tens of thousands of dollars
to remove a container filled with asbestos and other construction
debris that had been left exposed to the elements in a residential
area.

Neighbors were outraged over the three-week debacle at lawyer
Norman Chidiac's Clifton Avenue office complex. The container of
construction debris went uncovered for several days until the
state intervened, and even afterward it was concealed only by a
loosely secured tarp that flapped in the wind, residents said.

"When you hear 'asbestos,' what first comes to mind? Danger," said
a resident of Fornelius Avenue who asked not to be named. "Three
weeks go by and the neighborhood was exposed."

Chidiac said in interviews that a client, Steve DiFilippi, who
runs a construction company called Elite Demolition, dropped off
the 30 cubic-yard container and then asked his permission to keep
it in Chidiac's parking lot for a day. He allowed it, not knowing
the construction materials were mixed with asbestos, he said.

"I am as upset as the neighbors are," Chidiac said.  "[This]
turned into a monster."

It's not clear how much asbestos was mixed with construction
waste. It's also unknown whether residents could have been exposed
to the fibers, said Bob Considine, a spokesman for the DEP.
Prolonged inhalation of asbestos can cause lung cancer,
mesothelioma and asbestosis.

The state agency's solid-waste enforcement division learned of the
situation late in June when Newark Carting reported that a
container it owned had been stolen after a demolition job
involving two burned-down houses in Paterson, the spokesman said.
The city of Paterson had hired DiFilippi's company to remove the
debris but the company didn't finish the job, Considine said.

The division told Newark Carting where the container was stored
and that it had not been stolen. But Newark Carting refused to
remove it because DiFilippi hadn't paid up on rent for the bin,
Considine said.

The agency then instructed DiFilippi to wet down, cover and
shrink-wrap the overfilled and damaged container before
transferring the asbestos materials to another bin. But several
days passed, and all DiFilippi's contractor did was tape down some
plastic on the deteriorating container, Considine said.

The state environmental agency took over the job after it became
clear that DiFilippi wouldn't finance the necessary work,
Considine said. The agency spent an estimated $80,000 on the four-
day cleanup and will try to recoup the money, even though it's
unclear which companies will be held responsible, Considine said.

Chidiac was issued a violation for operating an unapproved solid-
waste facility. Violations are pending for DiFilippi, the
spokesman said.

DiFilippi could not be reached for comment.

Chidiac, a general practice lawyer, disputed the violation, which
he said he hadn't yet received.

"I'm not liable for anything because I didn't do anything wrong,"
he said. "I learned of it all after the fact."

But he said he's learned a lesson.

"You can't always be nice," Chidiac said. "People take advantage.
Unfortunately I was the sucker."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Report Sparks Action in Donnybrook
---------------------------------------------------------
Nina Smith, writing for Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail, reported that
a report highlighting 120 West Australia schools containing
asbestos has sparked action to ensure the safety of schools and
students at Donnybrook District High School.

The 2013 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Audit highlighted 35
of those schools as having asbestos back in 2010. The report was
released recently under freedom of information.

"The Barnett Government has failed to keep up with maintenance at
our schools and some of these health risks have been known since
2010," Labor spokesman for the South West Mick Murray said.

Donnybrook District High School was listed in the report as being
at the highest risk level. However, this referred to one
particular site and not the whole school.

Donnybrook District High School Principal Peter Fitzgerald said as
he understood the issue, and he had not been advised to the
contrary, the asbestos was in a situation where it was stable and
not a risk. It was also in one area of the school and not
throughout.

"Where there is risk, we act to the extent that we are enabled to
act. I am not enabled to act to remove asbestos. That is managed
through other agencies who act on behalf of the department," Mr
Fitzgerald said.

"The professionals who do the assessment have deemed it to be
safe. The requirement is for us to do nothing; at some future time
they may remove it, that's not a school decision, that's a
decision of the department's agents.

"My understanding is that it is not a risk in its current state to
the health or to the integrity and safety of everyone here."

Mr Fitzgerald met on July 24 with a representative of the BMW, an
arm of the Department of Treasury and Finance, who are responsible
for managing all government buildings.

"He inspected a section of screening at Bentley Street which has
attracted a high risk rating and is recommending that action be
taken to remove the asbestos product in the screens and that these
be replaced with a colourbond type product," Mr Fitzgerald said.

"Once this is approved, and I expect this will happen quickly,
then he will put in place a plan to remove the asbestos product.

"This process is done in accordance with industry protocols which
involve appropriate notifications, the employment of licensed
specialists and adherence to laws relating to disposal. The work
itself will happen at a time outside school hours, probably over a
weekend."

Education Minister Peter Collier assured parents statewide
following the release of the report that the state government was
taking every precaution with children's health in managing
asbestos in schools.

Mr Collier said the Western Australian Advisory Committee on
Hazardous Substances had advised that exposure to asbestos cement
material in WA public schools represented very little risk to
health.

"Environmental health experts advise that undisturbed asbestos
poses an extremely low risk to health, and where it is located in
areas that are unlikely to be disturbed, there is no urgent need
to remove it," Mr Collier said.

"That said, the state government has an ongoing program of
asbestos removal in schools where it presents a possible risk, and
last financial year we spent approximately $2million on associated
repairs and maintenance."

Further, he said all asbestos roofing on Western Australian
schools had long since been removed and replaced.

Mr Collier said the thorough Building Condition Assessment reports
carried out at every school provided a clear picture of where
asbestos was located, and identified those spots where there could
be a greater chance of the material being disturbed.

"Out of nearly 800 schools, there were only 14 schools where
inspectors found one or two spots in the school where the risk
rating was 1, meaning the asbestos is probably weathered and has a
higher chance of being disturbed and exposed," he said.

"Let me stress, this does not mean the whole school is at high
risk.

"In those cases, the Department of Education acts quickly and
assesses the best way to minimise any hazard.

"That may involve removing the asbestos altogether, which is done
under controlled conditions and when no students or staff are
present, or it may involve other work such as cutting off a tree
branch that is brushing up against an asbestos panel, or sealing
and enclosing the asbestos.

"Schools are in regular contact with the department if they have
any health and safety concerns about their facilities, and experts
can be dispatched quickly to assess the issue and fix it if
necessary."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mr. Fluffy Worker Clueless on Fibro Dangers
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
David Laughlan was Dirk Jansen's first employee when the man now
known as "Mr Fluffy" had the idea of spraying asbestos into
people's roof spaces as insulation.

Mr Laughlan spoke to The Canberra Times from his Queensland home,
where he is preparing to have a CT scan to check any ill-effects
from the job he had as a teenager installing the loose-fill
asbestos insulation.  He worked initially as a plasterer's
labourer for Mr Jansen in the late 1960s, before he and a salesman
were given the job of selling and installing the new insulation
idea.

One of them would feed the asbestos by hand from bags into a
hopper in the back of a Toyota Stout light truck, and the other
would get into the roof cavity of the house and spray it through a
blower between the joists in the ceiling, about four inches thick,
he said. He had no mask or other safety equipment and no idea the
material was a health risk.

"I suppose we all got the wool pulled over our eyes. We didn't
know it was dangerous," he said. "Nobody knew in [those] days . .
. You can't really blame for something that happened 40 years ago.
I don't think Dirk Jansen, he wasn't there to hurt anyone. He just
thought he was doing a good, cheap insulating job and he was
making a few quid out of it."

Mr Laughlan only worked for Mr Jansen for six months, but said in
just that short time he sprayed asbestos into four or five houses
a day, and would have done hundreds of houses in all.

"If I only worked for him for six months and if we were doing five
houses a day, five days a week, you've only got to do the maths,"
he said. "That's an awful lot of houses and it was a big money
spinner, it was cheap."

At a rate of 20 a week, 1000 homes would have been insulated with
the material in just one year, but Mr Fluffy operated for at least
11 years from 1968 until 1979.

The 1049 homes now known to have contained Mr Fluffy insulation
came to light more than 20 years ago when the government surveyed
65,000 homes built before 1980 for the asbestos.

The homes found in the survey were cleared but are now discovered
to have fibres remaining in the walls and subfloors, in some cases
contaminating the living areas, sparking the latest crisis. Just
five homes have come to light since, missed in the initial clean-
up.

Mr Laughlan, from Glasgow, emigrated with his family at 13. Now
65, he said he was about 18 when he worked for Mr Jansen.

The only questionable aspect of the business that he recalls was
the source of the asbestos -- he believes there was a trade
embargo at the time on imports from South Africa, given the
apartheid regime, so the asbestos bales came from South Africa via
New Zealand and the name of their source country was blacked out
with tar.

"He thought he'd get into trouble for trading with a South African
company," Mr Laughlan said of Mr Jansen.

Mr Laughlan went from that job to Sydney then back to Canberra
until the mid 1970s, when he moved to Queensland, where he lives
about an hour out of Brisbane.

He only started thinking about the risks of his insulation job
years later when asbestos dangers became widely known. About a
decade ago he had a lung scan, which showed no ill-effects. He is
now booking a full CT scan and lung biopsy.

Mr Laughlan, who has two children in their 40s, said he had always
had "breathing problems", "but not bad enough to want to sue
anyone". "It's just for my own self, I'd rather know everything's
okay."

But as for the asbestos, he says: "I'm sure he didn't do it on
purpose, he was a nice bloke to work for."

Mr Laughlan and wife Julie say they understand the seriousness and
concern for people living in Mr Fluffy homes, and they'd like to
know more also about the health effects on other employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Springfield Mill Fire Debris May Contain Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Wright, writing for The Register-Guard, reported that at
least one sample of ash debris believed to have traveled from the
fire at the Springfield Plywood and Veneer mill, in Oregon, has
tested positive for asbestos, the Lane Regional Air Protection
Agency said.

The complaint of possible debris from the mill fire came from a
private property owner in the Pleasant Hill area, about four miles
southeast of the Springfield mill, LRAPA spokeswoman Jo Niehaus
said.

The complaint was received, and initial testing by Northwest
Hazmat Inc. in Springfield found evidence of asbestos, Niehaus
said. Further testing is being conducted to confirm those findings
at an accredited lab in Portland, she said.

Niehaus urged anyone who has noticed ash debris on their property
and who suspects it may have floated there from the mill site, to
contact the air protection agency at 541-736-1056.

"We're trying to get a sense of the scope" of the problem, she
said. "We're trying to compile a list, but so far we only have the
one complaint."

The burned materials found in Pleasant Hill ranged from small
flakes of ash to larger, palm-sized charred debris, Niehaus said.

A spokesman for the Swanson Group, which owns the mill, said the
company has hired its own independent environmental engineering
firm to test the debris.

Spokesman Chuck Wert said the company also has hired an asbestos
remediation firm to assess the extent of asbestos that may still
be at the burned mill site as the company prepares for demolition
and cleanup.

"As soon as we were made aware of (the asbestos concerns), we got
experts on the ground to start investigating," Wert said. The
company is working with both LRAPA and the state Department of
Environmental Quality, which is also investigating, he said.

Old steam pipes in the mill were originally insulated with
asbestos-based materials, but over the years, as pipes were
repaired and replaced, newer asbestos-free insulation was used,
Wert said.

It's not yet 100 percent confirmed that the asbestos-containing
debris actually originated from the mill, Niehaus said.

Asbestos is a carcinogen that can be harmful when airborne.

If a person sees fire debris on their property that is white,
beige or gray in color and is felt-like in appearance, they should
not disturb the material, Niehaus said. "As long as the debris is
solid and undisturbed, it will reduce the risk of possible fibers
becoming airborne," she said.

If a person decides to remove fire debris on their own, he or she
should use a water mister to wet down the material and then store
it in a sealed plastic bag, Niehaus said. High-pressure water
hoses are not recommended, however, because they may break apart
the remains, he added.

Anyone trying to remove fire debris also should wear a protective
mask and gloves, she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Gov't Failed to Protect Workers From Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Vella, writing for Malta Today, reported that the European
Court of Human Rights has upheld, unanimously, a violation of the
right to life and the right to respect for private and family
life, of ship repair workers who were exposed to asbestos for a
number of decades beginning in the 1950s to the early 2000s which
led to them suffering from asbestos related conditions.

In a Chamber judgment in the case of Brincat and Others v. Malta,
the Court said that in view of the seriousness of the threat posed
by asbestos, and despite the room Malta had in taking positive
steps against this threat, the government neither legislated nor
took practical measures to ensure that the applicants were
adequately protected and informed of the risk to their health and
lives.

"Indeed, at least from the early 1970s, the Maltese government had
been aware or should have been aware that the shipyard workers
could suffer from consequences resulting from the exposure to
asbestos, yet they had taken no positive steps to counter that
risk until 2003," the Court said.

The government has been ordered to pay EUR30,000 jointly to the
applicants in one of the four cases; EUR12,000 to John Mary Abela,
EUR1,000 to Francis John Dyer, and EUR9,000 to each of the
remaining applicants; and EUR24,000 to all claimants jointly in
legal expenses.

The applicants are 21 Maltese nationals who were, or are the
immediate family of, employees of the Malta Drydocks run by the
government from 1968 to 2003 who had been exposed to asbestos and
in certain cases suffered conditions -- and in one case passed
away of a malignant cancer -- linked to exposure to asbestos.

The applicants alleged that they and their relatives were
constantly and intensively exposed to asbestos particles during
their employment repairing ship machinery insulated with asbestos.

In May 2009 all the applicants brought constitutional redress
proceedings alleging that the State had failed to protect them
from unnecessary risks to their health and they sought
compensation.  They alleged that the authorities had to have been
aware of such risks as early as 1938, when the link between
asbestos exposure and respiratory disease had first been
documented, and that the shipyard employees had neither been
informed nor protected from the dangers of asbestos in any way.

Moreover, they alleged that the government had failed to properly
legislate or take practical measures concerning the removal of
asbestos. They further complained that they had been denied an
effective remedy by the Maltese courts.

Former chief justice Vincent de Gaetano, the Maltese judge in the
European Court of Human Rights, was one of the judges in the
decision taken by the Strasbourg court.

The Court found that the Maltese government knew or ought to have
known of the dangers arising from exposure to asbestos at least as
from the early 1970s, given the domestic context as well as
scientific and medical opinion accessible to the government at the
time.

The applicants were left without any adequate safeguards against
the dangers of asbestos, either in the form of protection or
information about risks, until the early 2000s when they had left
employment at the ship repair yard, other than the applicant who
had died earlier.

Legislation which was passed earlier, in 1987 did not adequately
regulate asbestos related activity nor did it provide any
practical measures to protect employees whose lives may have been
endangered.

In view of the seriousness of the threat posed by asbestos, the
Court said the Maltese government had failed to satisfy their
positive obligations, to legislate or take other practical
measures under Articles 2 and 8.

The Chamber judgment is not final and during the three-month
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case
be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request
is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case
deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber
will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that
day.

Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its
execution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vietnam Considers Ban on Fibro in Boards
---------------------------------------------------------
Global Cement reported that the Vietnamese Ministry of Health has
proposed that the government should add asbestos, which is widely
used to produce roofing sheets in Vietnam, to the list of toxic
chemicals subject to a full ban. There are 36 producers of
asbestos cement (AC) roofing sheets in Vietnam, with an annual
production capacity of 100Mm2 of roofing sheets.

Vietnam has used asbestos since the 1960s and the country is among
the world's 10 largest users of asbestos, consuming and importing
some 60,000t/yr. More than 90% is used to manufacture AC roofing
sheets, while the rest is for the production of car brakes and
thermal insulation.

Deputy health minister Nguyen Thanh Long has said that the World
Health Organisation (WHO) and international cancer research
agencies have warned that all types of asbestos can cause lung,
larynx and ovarian cancer, as well as mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Asbestosis, a disease of the lungs caused by inhaling asbestos
fibres, has been recognised in Vietnam as an occupational disease
eligible for compensation since 1976. Ministry research has shown
that people living near an area where asbestos is used, or those
living under a roof made from asbestos, can also be affected.

The Research Institute of Technology for Machinery under the
Ministry of Industry and Trade have developed a non-asbestos
roofing sheet production line. Polyvinyl alcohol synthetic fibre
(PVA) is used to replace the asbestos, while pulp additives
increase stickiness. Prices of non-asbestos roofing sheets are 10%
to 15% higher than those made from asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Shuts Down Fraternity House
--------------------------------------------------
Morgan Palmer, writing for Foster's Daily Democrat reported that
members of the University of New Hampshire's chapter of the Sigma
Nu fraternity were left without a home now that asbestos has been
found in their 10 Madbury Road building.

The Fire Department responded two separate times to the property
for fire alarm activations. After the second alarm, fire crews
entered the residence to determine if there were any safety
issues.

"It turns out that the alarm had been activated due to dust,"
Assistant Fire Chief Jason Cleary said. "When we investigated
further, there were some pipes that had been removed in the
basement, and it released this white dust throughout the air in
the building. It appeared to our units to be asbestos."

Ted and Shelley Mulligan of SEJ Properties in Durham are listed as
the owners of the building, according to the town clerk's office.

Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring mineral fibers known
for its fiber strength and heat resistance, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Because of its strength, asbestos
is typically found in construction products such as heating system
insulation, hot water and steam pipes, vinyl floor tiles, sheet
flooring, roofing paper, and shingles.

Asbestos can become dangerous when it is disturbed, which
typically happens through demolition work, home repair or
remodeling. This can break down asbestos into microscopic fibers
that may become airborne. Once airborne, these fibers can be
easily inhaled and become trapped in the lungs.

Inhaling asbestos can cause a host of health problems such as
asbestosis, a chronic lung disease that scars lung tissue and
causes shortness of breath, lung cancer, or mesothelioma, a cancer
of the chest cavity lining. Disease symptoms can take many years
to develop following exposure.

Cleary said that when he went into the building he found the owner
in the basement. According to Cleary, the owner told him the dust
was the result of the some pipes being removed.

The town requires that type of work be down by a licensed
contractor. The Fire Department then ordered residents to vacate
the building to prevent asbestos contamination.

"The building was vacated, the windows and doors were closed and
locked, and the building was taped off and placarded as an
asbestos hazard," Cleary said. "No one was complaining of any
medical issues at the time. The majority of the residents were
outside doing stuff in the parking lot and didn't even realize.
The challenge with asbestos is sometimes you can have no symptoms
for several years."

Tom Johnson, director of zoning, building codes, and health for
the Town of Durham, arrived at the scene and quickly contacted the
N.H. Department of Environmental Services so state officials could
take samples to confirm the dust was indeed asbestos.

The results of the tests came back and have positively identified
the dust as asbestos, according to Pamela Monroe, the compliance
bureau administrator for the N.H. Department of Environmental
Services.

"At this point, the property owner has hired an industrial
hygienist to determine all areas where there might have been
contamination," Monroe said. "Once the level of contamination is
determined, he'll hire a licensed contractor. He is responsible
for those costs."

According to Cleary, residents who live in the building cannot
enter until the asbestos is entirely removed.

"Some items, depending on the level of contamination, can be
decontaminated," he said of the resident's belongings, "and some
will have to be discarded."

Monroe explained that although they are working as quickly as
possible to get the residents back into their home, no corners can
be cut.

"We want to make sure it's done correctly," she stated.

Four calls and an email sent to SEJ Properties were not returned.
Calls made to the Sigma Nu fraternity were also unanswered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Evacuates Fishtown School Over Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Medina, writing for Philly.com, reported that students have
been removed from a school in Fishtown, Philadelphia, amid
concerns over asbestos removal, a district spokesman confirmed.

Students attending summer classes were told not to report to Penn
Treaty School, on Thompson Street near Berks, spokesman Fernando
Gallard said.  At least 40 students were moved to the nearby
Adaire School, at Palmer and Thompson streets, where they will
continue to take classes, sources said.

Gallard said the action was taken in response to allegations by
Jerry Roseman, an expert in occupational health and safety for the
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers' Health & Welfare Fund.

Roseman and Arthur Steinberg, head of the PFT's Health and Welfare
Fund, are concerned about the district's handling of a massive
asbestos-removal project that has been underway since last fall at
Penn Treaty.

Roseman told the Daily News that he "saw children walking within
15 feet of bags of asbestos waste" left on a stairwell landing.
The bags should have been be disposed of immediately in a trash
bin, he said, adding that air samples at the school had
significant levels of asbestos.

Gallard said the district was taking precautions even though
Roseman's contention should not be an issue.

"It is not unusual for us to have an asbestos-abatement project
and children in the same area," Gallard said.

Steinberg said the district was taking an adversarial approach to
the issue.

"This administration treats us as adversaries and, obviously, they
treat kids and parents with a lack of respect as well," Steinberg
said. "Otherwise, they wouldn't allow this to occur."

The PFT alleges these health and safety issues exist at the
school:

     * Varied results between air samples taken by the district
and the union, and protocols weren't followed.

     * Other projects are also underway, adding more risk to the
site.

     * The district is less open and transparent about the project
with PFT officials than in previous years when the two parties
were more collaborative.


* The scope of the project has been troublesome, Steinberg and
Roseman said. In addition to the four floors where asbestos must
be removed in about 130 areas, workers are replacing the boiler
system.

"It's exceedingly challenging and difficult, and not going
smoothly," Roseman said.

The district disagrees. Gallard said a representative from the
Department of Public Health's Asbestos Control Unit is on site
every day.

Also, city Health Department spokesman Jeff Moran said that "the
project is inspected by the city two to three times a week."

The Health Department's Air Management Services found some
violations at Penn Treaty after the PFT voiced concerns. The
department cited both the abatement contractor, Delta/BJDS, and
the air-monitoring firm, Criterion Labs, for failing to have
proper signage and for not properly securing a shaft-enclosure
entrance, according to the citation records.

"The work is done under the eye of the Asbestos Control Unit,"
Gallard said. "We are very confident of the work done by the
Health Department on behalf of the children of Philadelphia and
making sure the district follows the regulations and programs for
workers and individuals in the building."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Firm Build Exec Gets Prison for Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Parsons, writing for The Modesto Bee, reported that a former
contractor who exposed dozens of teenagers in Merced County,
California, to asbestos fibers in 2005 and 2006 received a prison
sentence of three years, eight months.

Rudy Buendia III made no statement in Merced County Superior Court
after Judge John Kirihara handed down the prison term, which was
part of a plea deal with federal, state and county prosecutors.
Buendia likely will serve about two years in prison, officials
have said. He's scheduled to surrender to the U.S. Marshal's
office Aug. 8 to begin his term.

Andrew Bankhead, 25, was one of the more than 60 students exposed
to the cancer-causing insulation material without any protection
or training while working under the direction of the now-defunct
nonprofit contracting company Firm Build. He said the prison terms
amounted to "a slap on the wrist."

"These guys knew what they were doing; giving us cancer and
letting us die slowly," Bankhead told the Sun-Star in a telephone
interview. "How would they feel if the tables were turned; if
someone gave their kids asbestos and their kids died at the age of
say like 27?"

Buendia, 51, and the two other former Firm Build managers, Patrick
Bowman, 47, and Joseph Cuellar, 74, pleaded no contest last year
to recklessly disposing of hazardous materials and illegally
diverting construction funds, both felonies.

Prosecutors believe the defendants used students to remove
asbestos during a renovation project at Castle Commerce Center's
Automotive Training Center from September 2005 to March 2006.
Authorities said the defendants knew there was asbestos in the
building, but set the teenagers to work without protective
clothing, in violation of environmental laws.

District Attorney Larry D. Morse II said Bankhead's anger over the
sentence was "completely understandable."

"For the people exposed to asbestos, they have a life sentence of
their own, worrying constantly for the rest of their lives every
time they get sick or have a bloody nose that it could be the
onset of something cancer-related," Morse said. "For what the
charges were in the case, the sentence is consistent with what
others receive in similar cases."

Buendia's attorney, Kirk McAllister, said "mistakes were made with
Firm Build and Rudy Buendia is man enough to answer these
mistakes."

The Merced County Office of Education hired Firm Build to provide
students job training. An investigator with the Environmental
Protection Agency said about 68 people may have been exposed to
asbestos.

Bankhead said he used a flat-head screwdriver and a hammer to
break up floor tiles, light fixtures and pipes and helped take
down a wall at the job site. He said he was never given any
breathing masks, hardhats or gloves.

"I remember it was really, really dusty, but I didn't think
nothing of it at the time," Bankhead said. "I figured if the
school is sending us, everything must be fine. If I'd known or my
parents had known, they'd have never let me do it. I'd have never
gone to do it."

For the potentially life-threatening work, Bankhead -- who was 17
at the time -- received a few extra credits toward graduating from
Yosemite High School. "We were just trying to graduate high school
and it could cost us our lives," Bankhead said.

Bankhead is now married with two boys, ages 7 and 4, and a 2-year-
old girl. He told the judge he fears his life may be cut short. "I
want to see (my children) grow up; I want a full life," Bankhead
said.

The asbestos case against Firm Build came to light in 2007 during
a criminal probe into the company's financial activities.

Authorities said executives illegally diverted construction funds
in numerous unrelated projects, costing customers thousands. Two
victims told the court that Firm Build took their money, used it
to pay off other projects and did not pay the people who worked on
their homes.

Morse praised the case work of Deputy District Attorney Walter
Wall, investigators Anna Hazel and Wayne Hutton and Deputy
Attorney General Bret Morris. "They've all done a phenomenal job
in a case that has consumed many years," Morse said. "The credit
is entirely theirs."

Prosecutors considered withdrawing the plea agreement after
Buendia allegedly said he was innocent despite a no contest plea
entered in Merced County Superior Court last year. After further
talks between attorneys, however, prosecutors decided to move
forward with the plea deal.

Bowman began his two-year prison term in June.

Cuellar's case is pending because his attorney plans to withdraw
his client's no contest pleas in both the state and federal case.
Cuellar is due back in federal court Aug. 4 and in state court
Sept. 22, according to records.

More than two dozen asbestos victims have sued the Merced County
Office of Education, Firm Build and others in connection with
their exposure. Additional plaintiffs could be added to the
growing list of former high school students seeking damages
against the company and the school district, attorney Lewis Van
Blois said.

A hearing in the civil case was scheduled Aug. 13.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Decision Enforces Right to Access
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a mass tort attorney and blogger says a federal judge's
ruling in favor of Legal Newsline should help bring much-needed
transparency to asbestos and other mass tort bankruptcy cases.

U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn's ruled a bankruptcy judge
should not have closed the courtroom to Legal Newsline during last
summer's bankruptcy estimation trial of Garlock Sealing
Technologies, which introduced evidence it said showed fraud on
the part of asbestos plaintiffs lawyers.

Cogburn concluded that sealing documents and witness testimony was
the exception, not the rule, to handling alleged "confidential"
information. As a result, he reversed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George
Hodges' denial of the motions seeking access to evidence admitted
under seal and remanded the proceedings back to the bankruptcy
court with instructions on how to handle an unsealing process.

Kirk Hartley, writer of the Global Tort blog and founder of the
LSP Group law firm, said he is glad to see a positive step towards
transparency into asbestos bankruptcy cases, explaining that these
cases need "far more sunlight" exposing facts and realities of
mass tort litigation.

"It's good to see the right of access enforced for both media and
for others, and it's especially good to see the right of access
enforced in a bankruptcy case involving asbestos," Hartley said.

"Too often the usual legal rules are tossed out the window for
bankruptcy cases and for asbestos cases. These issues go well
beyond asbestos litigation because mass tort bankruptcy cases are
increasingly common as more companies face various kinds of very
large product liability or negligence problems."

However, Hartley added that the "major blanket of secrecy" hasn't
been removed yet, as interested parties must now wait and see what
happens in the bankruptcy court.

"So, it's good to see this ruling that does more to enforce the
right of access. But, everyone still has to wait and see what the
arguments and rulings are when the case gets back to the
bankruptcy court, and decisions are made about making public sets
and subsets of information ranging from trial testimony to trial
exhibits to deposition testimony and deposition exhibits."

Cogburn's ruling came after a July 15 hearing addressed
consolidated appeals from Legal Newsline, solvent asbestos
defendants and other interested parties.

Cogburn's order, filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina, concluded that the burden
should be placed on those who hope to keep information
confidential.

"As a gatekeeper, a judge must consider sealing as the exception
to the rule, give the public notice of its intent to seal, require
counsel to provide valid reasons for such extraordinary relief,
and then explain that decision as well as the reason why less
drastic alternatives were not employed," Cogburn wrote.

On Jan. 10, Hodges ruled in favor of Garlock and ordered the
gasket manufacturer to put $125 million in an asbestos trust --
roughly $1 billion less than what plaintiffs' representatives felt
was proper -- to satisfy its anticipated liability to current and
future asbestos claimants. In his decision, Hodges cited evidence
that he said showed asbestos attorneys were withholding evidence
while pursuing claims against Garlock.

The evidence of alleged misconduct by plaintiffs' attorneys led
Garlock to file lawsuits claiming it had been victimized by fraud,
deceit and racketeering when settling asbestos plaintiffs' claims
with Garlock.

Hodges ruled that the amount of previous awards and settlements
paid by the company in the civil justice system were not reliable
because plaintiffs attorneys had withheld exposure evidence in
order to maximize recovery against Garlock.

"This occurrence was a result of the effort by some plaintiffs and
their lawyers to withhold evidence of exposure to other asbestos
products and to delay filing claims against bankrupt defendants'
asbestos trusts until after obtaining recoveries from Garlock,"
Hodges wrote.

Garlock brought evidence to the bankruptcy hearing demonstrating
that the last 10 years of its participation in the asbestos
litigation system "was infected by the manipulation of exposure
evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers."

"It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse," Hodges continued. "But that is not necessary
because the startling pattern of misrepresentation that has been
shown is sufficiently persuasive."

Attorney Garland Cassada with the Robinson Bradshaw law firm is
representing Garlock in its bankruptcy proceeding and agreed with
the judgment.

"The district court came to the right decision when ruling that
Legal Newsline is entitled to access to the information," Cassada
said.

Cassada noted that while access to the information was proper,
Hodges did what he had to in order to keep the estimation trial on
track. He explained that if Hodges had stopped to address the
motions during the trial, it could have delayed proceedings
several days.

"Cogburn recognized that Hodges had an incredibly complex case.
Our bankruptcy judge has done a very nice job managing the case in
a very admirable way. I think he had a very difficult task,"
Cassada said.

Cogburn agreed that the proceedings were improperly closed, and,
therefore, reversed the closure and the denial of Legal Newsline's
motion.

Cogburn explained that the public right of access "protects the
public's ability to oversee and monitor the workings of the
federal courts and promotes the institutional integrity of the
judiciary."

He noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
concluded that "the rights of the news media . . . are coextensive
with and do not exceed those rights of members of the public in
general."

As a result, those who seek and are denied access to judicial
records sustain an injury.

Dr. Jared Schroeder, assistant professor at Augustana College,
noted the Fourth Circuit's conclusion that the media has no more
or less rights than the public.

He explained that this notion originated in the 1960s when the
press became more "confrontational" and began to play a big role
in changing or forming public opinion.

The government realized it could not stop the press from
publishing, but it could take away all of the sources, he said.

Schroeder likened it to purchasing cars.

"You can't stop people from buying cars," he said, "but if you
don't want them to drive, take away the gasoline and they won't be
going anywhere anyways."

Cogburn further explained that when documents are sealed, the
court is required to "state the reasons for its decision to seal
supported by specific findings, and the reasons for rejecting
alternatives to sealing to provide this court with sufficient
information for meaningful appellate review."

However, Cogburn added that other than judicial efficiency, Hodges
only relied upon protective orders and the representations by
interested counsel that such documents were confidential when
determining to seal the information.

"Clearly, the only basis relied on by the bankruptcy court other
than judicial efficiency in its sealing determinations was the
existence of protective orders and the representations by
interested counsel that such documents were confidential," Cogburn
wrote.

"While designation of a document as 'confidential' may well be the
impetus for attorney requesting a court to seal a document, it is
by no means an endpoint," he added. "Instead, the bankruptcy court
was required to 'show its work' by providing sufficient
information concerning the reasons such exceptional relief was
merited, which would have provided a basis for meaningful
appellate review . . ."

Rather, the bankruptcy court was required to provide sufficient
information regarding its determination that such "exceptional"
relief was merited.

He added that the confidentiality order relied upon by the
district court erroneously shifted the presumption favoring open
courts to a presumption favoring the closure of proceedings based
on confidentiality designations by the counsel. It, therefore,
shifted the burden to the public and the press to disprove the
contours of a need to seal.

In accordance with the Fourth Circuit's Stone decision, Cogburn
instructed the court to determine in the first instance the source
of the right of access with respect to each document or the
testimony of any witnesses as to which any party proposes or has
proposed be sealed.

Also, it should give the public notice of any such request to seal
and a reasonable opportunity to challenge it and consider any
reasonable alternatives to sealing, he wrote.

Trevor W. Swett, III, attorney with the Caplin & Drysdale law firm
and lead litigation counsel for the Asbestos Claimants Committee,
did not respond to requests for comment. The Asbestos Claimants
Committee objected to unsealing the documents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Receives GBP95,000 Fibro Pay-Out
--------------------------------------------------------
Katie Bond, writing for Swindon Advertiser, reported that a family
in Swindon, England, has received GBP95,000 in compensation from
British Rail following the death of a former labourer who was
exposed to asbestos more than 50 years ago.

Edward Dutton, of Devizes Road, died in 2011 aged 77, two years
after being diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos.

The family's solicitor, Brigitte Chandler, a leading industrial
disease lawyer and partner with Swindon law firm Charles Lucas &
Marshall, who has represented hundreds of railway workers over the
last 30 years, said that although Mr Dutton never worked directly
with asbestos, it was present throughout the buildings he was
required to work in.

"Even though the Swindon works closed in 1986, former workers are
still developing symptoms of asbestos exposure now," said
Brigitte.

"Anybody who has worked in an environment where asbestos is
present, no matter how long ago, and who is experiencing breathing
problems or discomfort should seek a medical opinion."

Mr Dutton worked for British Rail for 16 months between 1960 and
1961. He initially worked as a labourer and then became a
bricklayer's assistant.

Throughout the Swindon railway works he would have been exposed to
asbestos dust which was present on boilers, used for lagging
heating pipes and was widespread throughout the saw mills and
coach-building workshops.

Swindon and South West Asbestos Group is a regional charity which
provides support groups and a free advice service to people
suffering from asbestos disease and their families.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Old Library Demolition Delayed By Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cioffi, writing for Billings Gazette, reported that the
half-demolished Billings Parmly Library in Montana will stand a
few more weeks as crews wait for equipment to access the
building's basement.

In compliance with Department of Environmental Quality directives,
workers have been removing piles of debris containing asbestos
from the area immediately around the library.  But progress has
slowed getting debris from the building's basement, said Bill
Cochran, the Billings Library director.

A curtain of rebar and unstable concrete on the west side of the
building has prevented crews from getting into the basement
safely, and crews will sit idle as they wait for a machine that
can hack through it.

"There's no equipment on the site right now that can get through
it," Cochran said.

The only machine capable of taking down the rebar, which is spaced
every 8 inches, is in Missoula and getting it to Billings and
removing the steel could take three weeks and cost about $20,000.

"It will add in quite a bit of expense to the project," Cochran
said.

The delay may also push the completion date closer to November
than October, as previously planned.

The removal of materials from the basement was required because
when a piece of the demolition subcontractor's equipment plummeted
through the floor of the building, it could have taken asbestos-
containing materials with it, he said.

No one was hurt in the incident, but the DEQ worries that when the
excavator drove back and forth on the first floor's slab it made
asbestos-containing mastic friable. To make sure no asbestos gets
into the air, all debris must be removed.

Lead contractor Jackson Contractor Group appealed the DEQ's
requirement, arguing that debris removal wasn't necessary. They
requested to leave the debris in the basement while demolition
goes ahead, but their appeal was denied.

Easier-to-reach piles of debris above ground have been also been
sent to the hazardous materials section of the landfill over the
last few days, but during the wait for the shearing machine crews
could sit idle.

The plan is still forming and talks between the contractor and the
library continue, but as the completion date creeps into November,
Cochran worries that the asphalt parking lot could remain gravel
until spring.

"It's not been what we expected for the schedule," he said.

As the project drags on, the library will continue to use
unobligated library funds to expedite the project, but who will
ultimately pay is still unclear, he said. "There is going to have
to be a reconciliation through the contractor, insurance and legal
review."

Even though the project has dragged on, he said patrons have been
flocking to the library.

In the first quarter of 2014, new library cards are up 250 percent
over 2013 and he is grateful library visitors have been so
cooperative. "They have been very patient and understanding," he
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sophisticated User Revives Goodyear Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, reported that a California
federal judge reversed an MDL judge's ruling excusing Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co. and two other manufacturers from liability for a
Navy aircraft repairman's death from asbestos-induced cancer,
agreeing that a 2013 California appeals court ruling changed the
landscape for "sophisticated user" product liability defense
arguments.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer granted plaintiff Patti
Donlon's motion to reconsider U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno's decision to grant Goodyear, Curtiss-Wright and United
Technologies summary judgment.

The case is Donlon v. AC and S, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-
03376 (N.D.Calif.).


                              *********

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  * * *