CAR_Public/140905.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 177

                             Headlines


A1 SOLAR: Faces "Loveless" Suit in Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls
AIR FRANCE: Ill. Sued Over Damages Caused by Canceled Flights
AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER: Sued Over Failure to Prevent Concussions
ANNIE'S INC: Initial Case Conference in "Weiss" Action Continued
ANNIE'S INC: Initial Case Conference in "Taormina" Suit Continued

ATLAS ROOFING: Sued in E.D. Ky. Over Defective Roofing Shingles
AUTOLIV INC: October 30 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
AVIS BUDGET: Removed "Willis" Class Suit to N.D. California
BANK OF NEW YORK: Dec. 16 Hearing Set for Settlement Agreement
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Notice Procedure on Class Contact Info Okayed

BOEING COMPANY: Court Imposes Sanctions on Plaintiffs' Attys.
CAPITAL GROWTH: Faces "Goldman" Suit Over Securities Fraud
CARLYLE GROUP: Settles Collusion Case for $115 Million
CHEVRON MINING: Accused by U.S. Government of Polluting Red River
CONCORD PREMIUM: Recalls Marc Angelo Smoked Prosciutto Speck

CONOPCO INC: Faces "Paulino" Suit in Eastern District of New York
CR BARD: Faces "McAndrews" Suit Alleging Xenmatrix-Related Injury
DOLLAR TREE: "Reyes" Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
DOLLARAMA LP: Recalls Galvanized Metal Buckets
DUE FRATELLI: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Ortega" Suit Claims

ERGO BABY: Accused by Mom of Deceiving Buyers of Baby Carriers
ESTEVEZ MARKETS: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Violation of FLSA & NYLL
FERGUSON, MO: Sued for Hurting Six Arrestees During Racial Unrest
FERME FLORALPE: Recalls L'Alpette Cheese Due to Toxin
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Illegally Reduces Propane Amount, Suit Says

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in Mo. Over Propane Tanks Price-Fixing
FIRST STATE: Mag. Judge Recommends "Summers" Case Dismissal
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Attorneys Mull Nationwide Class Action
GFI GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With CME Unit
GOURMET SWEETS: Faces "Heras" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Notebook Computer AC Power Cords
ICM PARTNERS: Seeks Dismissal of Intern Class Action
INTEGRYS ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
LANNETT COMPANY: Faces Investor Class Action in Pennsylvania
LEAD INFO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hernandez" Suit Claims

LEAR CORP: October 17 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
LITTLE CAESARS: Refuses to Provide Benefits to Same-Sex Couples
MARS INC: Removed "Anson" Suit to Southern District of California
MRS BPO: Faces "Hansen" Suit in Utah Over Unsolicited Phone Sales
MASS ELECTRIC: Faces "Sierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MASSTOWN MARKET: Recalls Market Seafood Pies Due to Undeclared Egg
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Chamorro" Suit Over Scholarship Rules
NBTY INC: Faces Suit Over Protein Powder Deceptive Advertising
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: MDL Court Rules on Motions to Dismiss
NEW ORLEANS: State High Court to Hear Appeal Over Teacher Layoffs

NFL RETIREMENT PLAN: Greg Hill Denied Degenerative Disability
OCEAN ONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
PELLA CORP: "Pohutsky" Suit Moved From Maryland to South Carolina
PFIZER INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in E.D. Virginia
PFIZER INC: B.C. Sup. Ct. Ruling Puts Innovator Profits at Risk

PRECISION AUTO: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of Telephone Laws
PUCKETTS 5TH: Faces "Brewer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PURE BIOMED: Sued Over TCPA Violations
RENTAL XPRESS: "Escobar" Case Certified as Collective Action
ROUTH CRABTREE: "Aguinaldo" Suit Removed to Hawaii District Court

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
SHELBY COUNTY, AL: Judge Denies Class-Action Status in Acker Suit
SIEMENS HEARING: December 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SLOAN VALVE: Atty. Fees and Costs Awarded in United Desert Case
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act

STANLEY SMITH: Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Compensation
STAR BRITE: Recalls Waterproofing With PTEF and Aluminum Polish
SUPERVALU INC: Faces Class Suit in Massachusetts Over Data Breach
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Bid to Toss $9-Bil. Actos Verdict
TENNCARE: Awaits Decision in Medicaid Class Action

TETLEY USA: Judge Trims Unfair Competition Claim in Class Action
TOTAL LAWN: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Stough" Suit Claims
TRAY VOUS: Recalls Snack and Activity Tray
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wants to Hide Insurance Policy From Reporters
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Consumer Report

US POSTAL SERVICE: Sued for Requiring Class to Work Off-the-Clock
WALLACE & GALE: Bid for Apportionment of Asbestos Damages Nixed
WARD MANUFACTURING: Removed "Pelino" Suit to District of Maryland
WASHINGTON: Says Yakima Nation Must Give to Tobacco Agreement
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms Lawsuit Dismissal with Prejudice

WYOMING: 10th Cir. Partly Affirms Ruling in "Lewis" Case
YELP! INC: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Case Alleging Extortion

* HK Can't Change Voting Rules on Lack of Class-Action System


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: AVC Unit Named Defendant in "Spence" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Judge Tosses Bid to Block Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Seek Review on "Suttner" Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeal in "Hellam" Suit Is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in Pa. Suits Remain Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $976MM Fibro Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $8.9MM Est. Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. Inks Deal to Resolve Bondex Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $104MM PI Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 51,000 Pending PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Estimates $774.3MM Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $695-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Insurance Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Won't Review Ruling in Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling on AIU Late-Filed Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide's Bid to Junk NY PI Suit Denied

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Doctor Opinion in PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Boyer" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Burns" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Rule 5(c) Motions in "Denton" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Affirms Ruling in "Ehlert" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fanelli" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Awarded Partial Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rule 5(c)(1) Motion Granted in "Hager" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Del. PI Suits v. GE, Reichhold Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Masephol" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Espanola School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riverina Reserve Closed Due to Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schools Seek OK for Fibro Removal Spending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Leak Mitigated at Ridgefield High
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Agrees AIU's Fibro Claim Came Too Late

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Residents Angry After Fibro Burnt in Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Still Present on Horn Island
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths in UK to Peak in Next 5 Yrs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charity Blasts University Over Fibro in Rooms
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Panel Affirms Ford's Win in Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Fails to Obtain Fibro Inspection
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spuds Factory Plan Sparks Residents' Fibro Fear
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Halts "Jeopardy!" Block Razing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Jury Awards Nearly $37MM in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equityholder in Fibro Case Wants Fee Examiner

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Fibro Liability Doesn't Extend to Spouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hove Firm Prosecuted After Flouting Fibro Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Korean Village Choked Off by Fibro Mining
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer Cited for Exposing Workers to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Protein A Critical Biomarker for Mesothelioma

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Fall River Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Needs to Be Removed in Clarion Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas for Info on Husband's Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Death Widow to Sue Firm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Llanelli Man Fined After Throwing Fibro to River

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Allays Fibro Fears Over Hounslow Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Fibro Law Experts Join Irwin Mitchell
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roof Collapses on Patrons
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students Return to Fibro-Contamined School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Can No Longer Be Dumped at Ipswich

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Want Answers on Fibro-Laced Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plantiffs Fight v. Transparency Laws for Trusts


                            *********


A1 SOLAR: Faces "Loveless" Suit in Cal. Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marilynn Loveless, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. A1 Solar Power Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01779
(C.D. Cal., August 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting The Plaintiff on residential telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A1 Solar Power Inc. offers solar energy system for home and
business use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq. (216752)
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

         - and -

      Marc H. Phelps, Esq. (237036)
      THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9111
      Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
      E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com

         - and-

      Roger R. Carter, Esq.
      THE CARTER LAW FIRM
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-4737
      Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
      E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net


AIR FRANCE: Ill. Sued Over Damages Caused by Canceled Flights
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhanna Vinokur a/k/n Zhanna Vinokurov, individually on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated vs. Societe Air France
Limited, American Airlines, Inc., and Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-06638 (N.D. Ill., August 28, 2014), seeks to recover
actual, general and special damages, as well as incidental and
consequential damages from the Defendants, for delay and or
cancellation of international air flights in a course of
international air transportation.

The Defendants own and operate air transportation carriers that
offer international and domestic flights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF VLADIMIR M. GOROKHOVSKY
      10919 N Hedgewood Ln
      Mequon, WI 53092
      Telephone: (414) 581-1582
      E-mail: gorlawoffice@yahoo.com


AMERICAN YOUTH SOCCER: Sued Over Failure to Prevent Concussions
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBSLA.com reports that a class-action lawsuit was recently filed
against California youth soccer leagues accused of failing to
prevent players from getting concussions.

According to the lawsuit, prosecutors are looking to limit the
number of times a child hits the ball with his or her head in
order to help prevent injuries.  The goal is to adopt a protocol
to evaluate and manage concussion symptoms, prosecutors said.

CBS2's Michele Gile spoke with parents and soccer players on
Aug. 29 who gave reaction to the lawsuit.

Michael McKenzie, a former American Youth Soccer Organization
coach, was put through concussion training.  Mr. McKenzie said he
was taught that any player with symptoms is to be pulled out,
evaluated and not allowed back in the game.

"In my 10 years, I have only witnessed two people having
concussions through hundreds and hundreds of games and practices,"
Mr. McKenzie said.

Mr. Gile reported that any soccer player will agree that "headers"
are part of the game.  The action of hitting the soccer ball off
of a person's head with force seems to be the leading cause for
this concussion epidemic.

"Sometimes, you just don't think about it, and it's like a bullet
straight to your head," said soccer player Alyssa McKenzie.  "It
just hurts really bad, and you kind of feel like your brain boggle
in your head."

A statement was released by AYSO officials in response to the
lawsuit.

"AYSO's highest priority is creating a safe and nurturing
environment where kids can play and have fun," the statement read.
"We take seriously the issue of concussion awareness and are proud
to have played a leading role in developing policies and programs
to address this area of concern since 2009."

AYSO was founded 50 years ago in Torrance.  The soccer
organization is listed in the lawsuit, among similar leagues.


ANNIE'S INC: Initial Case Conference in "Weiss" Action Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth L. Freeman signed on August 25, 2014, a
stipulation and order to continue the initial case management
conference, reset related deadlines, and extend defendant's time
to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in the case
captioned DONNA L. WEISS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ANNIE'S, INC., JOHN M. FORAKER,
KELLY J. KENNEDY, and ZAHIR M. IBRAHIM, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:14-
CV-02711-BLF, (N.D. Cal.).

The stipulation provides that:

1. Defendants need not answer, move or otherwise respond to the
   Complaint in this action or any related, subsequently filed
   actions transferred to this Court until a date to be set
   following the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15
   U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B) and the filing by that lead
   plaintiff of a consolidated amended complaint.

2. Within 45 days from the date that the Court appoints lead
   plaintiff(s) and lead counsel pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
   78u-4(a)(3)(B), the lead plaintiff(s) must file an amended
   consolidated complaint.

3. Within 45 days from the date that an Amended Complaint is filed
   by the Court-appointed lead plaintiff(s), Defendants must file
   a motion to dismiss, answer, or other response to the Amended
   Complaint.

4. In the event the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the
   Amended Complaint, lead plaintiff(s) will have 45 days from
   filing of the motion to filed an objection. Defendants will
   have 30 days from the filing of lead plaintiff's opposition
   papers in which to file reply papers.

5. The case management conference presently scheduled in the Weiss
   Action for November 13, 2014, along with any associated
   deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
   Rules (including ADR deadlines), are vacated, and reset to a
   date after the Court rules on Defendants' anticipated motion to
   dismiss the Amended Complaint.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation memorandum is available
at http://is.gd/p88Nqhfrom Leagle.com.

LIONEL Z. GLANCY -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- MICHAEL GOLDBERG --
mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- ROBERT V. PRONGAY --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- ELAINE CHANG -- echang@glancylaw.com --
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys
for Plaintiff Steven Taormina.

Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Francis P.
McConville -- fmcconville@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, New York,
New York, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Chicago, IL, Counsel for Plaintiff
Donna L. Weiss.

John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com --  Shannon M. Eagan --
seagan@cooley.com -- Jeffrey M. Kaban -- jkaban@cooley.com --
COOLEY LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.


ANNIE'S INC: Initial Case Conference in "Taormina" Suit Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In STEVEN TAORMINA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ANNIE'S, INC., JOHN M. FORAKER,
KELLY J. KENNEDY, and ZAHIR M. IBRAHIM, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:14-
CV-02711-BLF, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Beth L. Freeman signed
on August 25, 2014, a stipulation and order continuing the initial
case management conference, reset related deadlines, and extend
defendant's time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.

The stipulation provides that Defendants need not answer, move or
otherwise respond to the Complaint in this action or any related,
subsequently filed actions transferred to this Court until a date
to be set following the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B) and the filing by the lead
plaintiff of a consolidated amended complaint.

Within 45 days from the date that the Court appoints lead
plaintiff(s) and lead counsel pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(3)(B), the lead plaintiff(s) must file an amended consolidated
complaint.

Within 45 days from the date that an Amended Complaint is filed by
the Court-appointed lead plaintiff(s), Defendants must file a
motion to dismiss, answer, or other response to the Amended
Complaint.

In the event the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, lead plaintiff(s) have 45 days from filing of that
motion in which to file an objection. Defendants have 30 days from
the filing of lead plaintiff's opposition papers in which to file
reply papers.

The case management conference presently scheduled in the Taormina
Action for November 20, 2014, along with any associated deadlines
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules
(including ADR deadlines), are vacated, and reset to a date after
the Court rules on Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/2011Lrfrom Leagle.com.

LIONEL Z. GLANCY, MICHAEL GOLDBERG, ROBERT V. PRONGAY, ELAINE
CHANG, GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP, Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Taormina.

Howard G. Smith -- howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES
OF HOWARD G. SMITH, Bensalem, PA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven
Taormina.

John C. Dwyer, Shannon M. Eagan, Jeffrey M. Kaban, COOLEY LLP,
Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.


ATLAS ROOFING: Sued in E.D. Ky. Over Defective Roofing Shingles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Makowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Atlas Roofing Corporation d/b/a Meridian Roofing
Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-00157 (E.D. Ky., August 28, 2014),
arises from the defective roofing shingles that were designed,
manufactured, marketed, advertised and sold by the Defendant under
the Chalet product name.

Atlas Roofing Corporation sells, directly or indirectly through
dealers and retail outlets, shingles nationwide and in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Whitfield, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      19 N. Main Street
      Madisonville, KY 42431
      Telephone: (270) 821-0656
      Facsimile: (270) 825-1163
      E-mail: jwhitfield@att.net


AUTOLIV INC: October 30 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED OCCUPANT SAFETY SYTEMS DIRECTLY FROM AUTOLIV,
TAKATA, TOKAI RIKA, OR TRW BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2003 AND MAY 30,
2014, YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
WITH THE AUTOLIV DEFENDANTS.

A proposed $40 million settlement has been reached in In re
Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2311, 2:12-cv-00601-
MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), with defendants Autoliv, Inc., Autoliv ASP,
Inc., Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG, Autoliv Safety Technology, Inc., and
Autoliv Japan Ltd.

What is the lawsuit about? This class action is part of
coordinated legal proceedings involving a number of parts used in
motor vehicles.  The litigation, and the proposed settlement,
relate solely to Occupant Safety Systems purchased directly from a
defendant.  These proceedings do not relate to, and have no effect
upon, cases involving any other product or purchaser.

"Occupant Safety Systems," for purpose of the settlement, are seat
belts, airbags, steering wheels or steering systems, safety
electronic systems and related parts and components.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs allege that defendants entered into a
conspiracy with other defendant manufacturers of Occupant Safety
Systems to suppress and eliminate competition for Occupant Systems
by agreeing to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices, rig bids, and
allocate the supply of Occupant Safety Systems in violation of
federal antitrust laws.  Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs further
allege that as a result of the conspiracy, they and other direct
purchasers of Occupant Safety Systems were injured by paying more
for those products than they should have paid and seek recovery of
treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award
of attorneys' fees.

Autoliv and the other defendants deny plaintiffs' allegations, and
the Court has not issued any findings or rulings on the merits of
plaintiffs' claims or defendants' defenses.  This is a partial
settlement of the claims in the Complaint, as it is with Autoliv
only.  The litigation is continuing against the remaining
defendants.

Who is included? The Class is composed of all individuals and
entities who purchased Occupant Safety Systems in the United
States directly from any of the following defendants, or any of
their respective parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates, from
January 1, 2003 through May 30, 2014 (the "Class Period"): Autoliv
Inc.; Autoliv ASP, Inc.; Autoliv B.V. & Co. KG; Autoliv Safety
Technology, Inc.; Autoliv Japan Ltd.; Takata Corporation; TK
Holdings, Inc.; Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.; TRAM, Inc. d/b/a Tokai Rika
U.S.A. Inc.; TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation; and TRAW
Deutschland Holding GmbH.

A Notice of Proposed Settlement was scheduled to be mailed to
potential Direct Purchaser Settlement Class members on or about
August 29, 2014.  The Notice describes the litigation and options
available to Direct Purchaser Settlement Class members with
respect to the Autoliv settlement in more detail.  If you do not
receive the Notice you may obtain a copy on the Internet at
www.autopartsantitrustlitigation or by calling or writing to the
following Settlement Class Counsel:

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAFT, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WiLLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class

What does the settlement provide? Autoliv has paid the amount of
$40 million (the "Settlement Fund") into an escrow account and
will cooperate with plaintiffs in the prosecution of the claims
against the remaining defendants.

You rights may be affected. If you purchased Occupant Safety
Systems in or into the United States directly from any defendant
during the Class Period, you will automatically remain a Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class Member as to the Autoliv settlement
unless you elect to be excluded.  If you wish to remain the Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action at
this time and your interests will be represented by plaintiffs and
by Settlement Class Counsel.

If you do not want to be bound by the Settlement, you must submit
a written request for exclusion, postmarked no later than
October 30, 2014.  If you validly exclude yourself from the Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class, you will not bound by any decision
concerning the Autoliv settlement and you can pursue individually
any claims you may have against Autoliv, but you will be eligible
to share in the Settlement Fund created by the Autoliv settlement.

If you stay in the Settlement Class, you have the right to object
to the proposed Autoliv settlement and to plaintiffs' request to
utilize a portion of the Settlement Fund to pay plaintiffs'
litigation expenses.  Your objection must be filed no later than
October 30, 2014.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on December 3, 2014, to consider
whether to approve the proposed settlement and plaintiffs' request
to utilize a portion of the Settlement Fund to pay plaintiffs'
litigation expenses.  The hearing may be continued without further
notice.

If you believe you are a member of the Direct Purchaser Settlement
Class, you are urged to obtain a copy of the detailed Notice,
which discusses your rights regarding the Autoliv settlement.

If you have questions concerning this litigation, you may contact
Settlement Class Counsel.

Do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge

Dated: August 25, 2014

BY ORDER OF: The United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division


AVIS BUDGET: Removed "Willis" Class Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Willis v. Avis Budget Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. RG14734826, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-
03926-KAW to the proceeding.

The case arises from labor-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Neil Michael Larsen, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  neil@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          EISENBERG AND ASSOCIATES
          3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 201-9331
          Facsimile: (213) 382-4083
          E-mail: tko@laborlitigators.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jody Ann Landry, Esq.
          Jerrilyn Takada Malana, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 515-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
          E-mail: jlandry@littler.com
                  jmalana@littler.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Dec. 16 Hearing Set for Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF A JUDICIAL INSTRUCTION PROCEEDING IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
JPMORGAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES,
NOTES OR OTHER SECURITIES ("CERTIFICATEHOLDERS") OF THE
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIZATION TRUSTS AND LOAN GROUPS
IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT A HERETO (THE "ACCEPTING TRUSTS AND LOAN
GROUPS") AND OTHER PERSONS POTENTIALLY INTERESTED IN THE
ACCEPTING TRUSTS AND LOAN GROUPS. THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS AND
OTHER NOTICE RECIPIENTS SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE AND THE
MATERIALS REFERENCED HEREIN CAREFULLY IN CONSULTATION WITH
THEIR LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
MODIFIED PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COULD MATERIALLY
AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN BY:

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
LAW DEBENTURE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
EACH, IN ITS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE, INDENTURE TRUSTEE, SEPARATE
TRUSTEE, AND/OR SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE ACCEPTING TRUSTS AND
LOAN GROUPS (COLLECTIVELY, THE "ACCEPTING TRUSTEES" AND EACH AN
"ACCEPTING TRUSTEE"), TO CERTIFICATEHOLDERS.

THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS. ALL DEPOSITORIES, CUSTODIANS AND OTHER
INTERMEDIARIES RECEIVING THIS NOTICE, AS APPLICABLE, ARE
REQUESTED TO EXPEDITE THE RE-TRANSMITTAL OF THIS NOTICE TO
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS IN A TIMELY MANNER.

Dated: August 20, 2014

This notice (the "Notice") is given to you by the Accepting
Trustees under certain applicable Pooling and Servicing
Agreements, Indentures, Servicing Agreements, Mortgage
Loan Purchase Agreements, Assignment and Assumption Agreements
and/or other agreements governing the Accepting Trusts and Loan
Groups (the "Governing Agreements").

ACCEPTANCE OF MODIFIED PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This notice relates to the RMBS Trust Settlement Agreement entered
into as of November 15, 2013 and modified as of July 29, 2014 (the
"Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement" or "Settlement"), by a
group of twenty-one (21) institutional investors (the
"Institutional Investors") and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its direct
and indirect subsidiaries ("JPMorgan").

A copy of the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement is available
at http://is.gd/0aj7S3

Capitalized terms used in this Notice and not otherwise defined
have the meanings assigned to them in the Modified Proposed
Settlement Agreement.

In a prior notice to Certificateholders, dated August 1, 2014, the
Accepting Trustees informed Certificateholders that on August 1,
2014, the Accepting Trustees notified JPMorgan that, following an
evaluation process including consideration of expert reports, they
each have accepted the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement on
behalf of the Accepting Trusts and Loan Groups for which they act
as trustee, indenture trustee, separate trustee, or successor
trustee, subject to Final Court Approval.

FINAL COURT APPROVAL -- NOTICE OF A JUDICIAL INSTRUCTION
PROCEEDING

The Accepting Trustees have filed a petition (the "Petition") and
commenced a judicial instruction proceeding pursuant to CPLR Sec.
7701, In the matter of the application of U.S. Bank National
Association, et al., (Index No. 652382/2014) (the "Article 77
Proceeding"), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York (the "Court"). In the Article 77 Proceeding,
the Accepting Trustees are seeking a judgment that the Accepting
Trustees' acceptance of the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement
on behalf of the Accepting Trusts and Loan Groups was a reasonable
and good faith exercise of the Accepting Trustees' authority
under the applicable Governing Agreements, and barring
Certificateholders from asserting claims against the Accepting
Trustees with respect to the Accepting Trustees' evaluation and
acceptance of the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement and
implementation of the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement in
accordance with its terms. Such a judgment, if granted,
would constitute, after becoming final and non-appealable
(including the expiration of any time to apply for discretionary
review), "Final Court Approval" under and as defined in the
Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement.

On August 15, 2014, the Court issued an order (the "August 15
Order") approving a notice program related to the Article 77
Proceeding and directing, among other things, that:

   * anyone having an interest in the Accepting Trusts and Loan
Groups show cause before the Court at IAS Part 60, to be held at
the Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, New York, New York, on the 16th
day of December, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. ("Hearing Date"), or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, why an order
should not be issued, pursuant to CPLR Sec. 7701, granting
judgment in favor of the Accepting Trustees, as trustees,
indenture trustees, separate trustees, and/or successor trustees
for the Accepting Trusts and Loan Groups, on their Petition;

   * the Court reserves the right to adjourn the Hearing Date or
any adjournment thereof without further notice of any kind other
than oral announcement on the Hearing Date or any adjournment
thereof or e-filed order; and the Court reserves the right to
approve the Accepting Trustees' entry into the Settlement
(including with such modification(s) as may be consented to by the
parties to the Settlement in accordance with its terms) without
further notice of any kind beyond such notice as provided for in
the August 15 Order;

   * any potentially interested person who wishes to be heard in
support of or opposition to the Settlement and/or the Petition may
appear in person or by an attorney on the Hearing Date and subject
to further order of the Court may present evidence or argument
that may be proper and relevant; provided, however, that,
except for good cause shown, no person shall be heard and nothing
submitted by any person shall be considered by the Court in
objection to the Settlement unless a written notice of intention
to appear along with a statement of such person's objection to any
matters before the Court and the grounds therefor, as well as all
documents such person desires the Court to consider, shall be
filed with the Court and served upon the Accepting Trustees'
counsel, on or before November 3, 2014;

   * any potentially interested person who fails to object in the
manner required by the August 15 Order shall be deemed to have
waived the right to object (including any right of appeal) and
shall forever be barred from raising such objection in the
Article 77 Proceeding or any other action or proceeding, unless
the Court orders otherwise;

   * on or before December 3, 2014, any papers in response to any
such objection, or any submissions in favor of or with respect to
the Settlement, shall be filed with the Court and served upon (i)
any person who submitted any objection, and (ii) any person who
has been granted leave to intervene and entered a formal
appearance in the Article 77 Proceeding pursuant to CPLR Sec. 320;

   * except for good cause shown, no person other than the
Accepting Trustees' counsel shall be heard on the Hearing Date
unless such person has submitted an objection, or a submission in
favor of or with respect to the Settlement, in accordance with the
August 15 Order;

   * the Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the Accepting
Trustees, the Accepting Trusts and Loan Groups and all trust
beneficiaries (whether past, present or future) for all matters
relating to the Settlement and the Article 77 Proceeding;

   * during the pendency of the Article 77 Proceeding, the, the
Accepting Trustees may seek an instruction from the Court before
responding to or taking any action with respect to assertions,
allegations, notices, or directions from any trust beneficiary
relating to the subject matter of the Article 77 Proceeding;

   * all papers required or permitted to be served by the
Accepting Trustees or any party who is subsequently granted leave
to intervene shall be served by filing on the court e-filing
system ("NYSCEF"), unless a party or recipient is exempt, and
by overnight mail or personal delivery;

   * any papers served by any objector or other potentially
interested person who is not formally granted leave to intervene
shall be served by filing on NYSCEF, unless a party or recipient
is exempt, and by overnight mail or personal delivery
to the Accepting Trustees;

   * two hard copies of all papers served by any person, with
proof of service thereof, shall also be filed with the Clerk of
Part 60 by the date on which such papers are required to be filed.
(For example, paragraph 6 of the August 15 Order requires a
written notice of intention to appear to be served and filed by
November 3, 2014.  Hard copies shall also be filed with the Part
60 Clerk by that date).  For any paper for which this Order to
Show Cause does not specify a service and filing date, the two
hard copies shall be filed with the Part 60 Clerk in advance of
the return date and, if possible, at least seven days before the
return date.  Except for good cause shown, no request to be heard
will be granted unless such hard copies are filed pursuant to this
paragraph;

   * any written notice of intention to appear with statement of
the grounds for objection, and any other written motions and
papers required or permitted to be filed for any purpose in the
Article 77 Proceeding shall be subject to the following
requirements.  Such papers shall be double-spaced and shall not
exceed a total of 15 pages, not including documentary evidence,
unless an expansion of the page limits is granted by the Court in
advance of the filing of the papers. (For example,
a notice of intention to appear, statement of grounds for the
objection, and memorandum of law in support shall together not
exceed 15 pages); and

   * any request for leave to formally intervene (as opposed to
submission of written notice of intention to appear) shall be made
by order to show cause, not by separate Petition.  Petitions that
have been served and filed as of August 15, 2014 will be accepted
by the Court.

The August 15 Order is available at http://is.gd/kmgCUE

Following the Article 77 Hearing, the Court will determine, among
other things, whether to grant the requested judgment, and will
consider other important matters described in the Modified
Proposed Settlement Agreement.  If the requested judgment is
granted and becomes final and non-appealable (including the
expiration of any time to apply for discretionary review)
and if the other conditions to the effectiveness of the Modified
Proposed Settlement Agreement are satisfied, the Modified Proposed
Settlement Agreement will become effective and will affect the
rights and interests of all Certificateholders, and their
successors-in-interests and assigns, in the Accepting Trusts and
Loan Groups, including by, among other things, releasing claims
against JPMorgan on behalf of the Accepting Trusts and Loan Groups
arising out of or relating to Rep and Warranties Claims and
Servicing Claims.

If the Court grants the requested judgment and such judgment
becomes final and non-appealable (including the expiration of any
time to apply for discretionary review) and the other conditions
to effectiveness of the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement are
satisfied, all Certificateholders will be bound by the Modified
Proposed Settlement Agreement whether or not they appeared in the
matter or submitted any objection to the Modified Proposed
Settlement Agreement.  The Petition, any papers filed in support
of the Petition, any orders entered by the Court in the Article 77
Proceeding and other information relevant to the Article 77
Proceeding will be made available at
http://www.rmbstrusteesettlement.com/index.php (the "JPM Proposed
Settlement Website"), which will be updated when additional papers
are filed or additional orders are entered in the Article 77
Proceeding.  You should also be able to obtain any documents filed
with the Court by visiting the Court's website:
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/
If you have any questions, you may call (855) 382-6461 in the
United States, (513) 785-0998 outside the United States, or send
an email to questions@rmbstrusteesettlement.com

Certificateholders should NOT direct inquiries to the Court or the
Clerk of the Court.

MISCELLANEOUS

This Notice summarizes the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement
and the Article 77 Proceeding and is not a complete statement of
the Modified Proposed Settlement Agreement or the Article 77
Proceeding or a summary or statement of relevant law or of
relevant legal procedures.  Certificateholders and other
potentially interested persons are urged to carefully
consider the implications of the Modified Proposed Settlement
Agreement, including the releases of the Rep and Warranty Claims
and Servicing Claims and to consult with their own legal and
financial advisors.

Certificateholders and other persons interested in the Accepting
Trusts and Loan Groups should not rely on the Accepting Trustees,
their counsel, experts or other advisors retained by the
Accepting Trustees, as their sole source of information.
Please note that this Notice is not intended and should not be
construed as investment, accounting, financial, legal, tax or
other advice by or on behalf of the Accepting Trustees, or
their directors, officers, affiliates, agents, attorneys or
employees.  Each person or entity receiving this Notice should
seek the advice of its own advisors in respect of the matters set
forth herein.

A List of Accepting Trusts and Loan Groups is available at:

http://www.rmbstrusteesettlement.com/docs/ART77FINALNOTICE.pdf


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Notice Procedure on Class Contact Info Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore approved a stipulation
regarding notice procedures regarding disclosure of putative class
members' contact information in the case captioned HOLLY GEHL, et
al others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05961-KA W., (N.D.
Cal.).

The court-approved stipulation dated August 25, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/CF1Ir6from Leagle.com,
provides, among other things, that on or before September 5, 2014,
the T-Bird Defendants will provide plaintiffs' counsel with the
name of each non-exempt employee who has been employed at any
California Outback Restaurant from November 8, 2010 until the
present time (the Statutory Period), along with their locations of
employment, as has been requested, in part, by plaintiff Chris
Armenta's interrogatories to the defendants.

On or before September 5, 2014, the T-Bird Defendants will also
provide the last known physical address; the email addresses, to
the extent that the T-Bird Defendants has any email addresses;
telephone numbers; dates of employment; positions of employment
for each time period; and location of employment for each time
period of all non-exempt employees identified to a third-party
administrator to be agreed-upon by the parties (TPA). Within ten
days of receipt of this information, the TPA will send to all
identified individuals by United States mail, and email where
email addresses are available, a notice.

DON SPRINGMEYER -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- BRADLEY SCHRAGER
-- bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JUSTIN
JONES -- jjones@wrslawyers.com -- WOLFF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN
& RABKIN, LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada.

MATTHEW OSTER -- moster@wrslawyers.com -- ERIC LEVINRAD --
elevinrad@wrslawyers.com -- JOSHUAA. SHAPIRO WOLF, RIFKIN,
SHAPIRO, SCHIJLMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Los Angeles, California
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

LATHROP & GAGE, LLP BETH SCHROEDER -- bschroeder@lathropgage.com
-- LAUREN KATUNICH -- lkatunich@lathropgage.com -- ALLISON WALLIN
-- awallin@lathropgage.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Attorneys
for Defendants T-BIRD RESTAURANT


BOEING COMPANY: Court Imposes Sanctions on Plaintiffs' Attys.
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System brought a putative
class action securities fraud case against The Boeing Company, its
chairman, president, and chief executive officer W. James
McNerney, Jr., and its former executive vice president, president,
and chief executive officer of the commercial airplanes segment
Scott E. Carson, under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule
10-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. Judge Conlon dismissed
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice and entered
judgment on March 7, 2011. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and
on May 6, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
suit with prejudice, but vacated and remanded the judgment for
consideration of whether to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs'
attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(c)(1), (2).

Chief District Judge Ruben Castillo, in a memorandum opinion and
order dated August 21, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/daglbUfrom Leagle.com, imposes sanctions on
Plaintiffs' attorneys saying they violated Rule 11(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

"In light of this opinion, the parties are strongly encouraged to
mediate and settle the remaining issue of the amount of
appropriate attorneys' fees and expenses. If the parties cannot
achieve this goal, the Court instructs Defendants to submit an
attorneys' fee and costs petition, with billing records, in
accordance with our local rules on or before October 14, 2014,"
ruled Judge Castillo.

The case is CITY OF LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, W. JAMES McNERNEY, JR., and
SCOTT E. CARSON, Defendants, NO. 09 C 7143, (N.D. Ill.).

City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Thomas E Egler -- tome@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Deborah R. Gross --
debbie@bernardmgross.com -- Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.,
James E Barz -- jbarz@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, John J. Rice -- ricej@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP,
Lori Ann Fanning -- LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com -- Miller Law LLC,
Marvin Alan Miller -- Mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC,
Maureen E. Mueller -- mmueller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Dowd -- miked@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Patrick J Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Randi D Bandman --
randib@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Trig
Randall Smith -- trigs@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Boeing Company, The, Defendant, represented by David B Tulchin --
tulchind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, Alexander J.
Willscher -- willschera@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell Llp,
Benjamin R. Walker -- willschera@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell Llp, Eric D. Brandfonbrener --
EBrandfonbrener@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLC, H. Rodgin
Cohen -- cohenhr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell Llp, Patrick
M. Collins -- PCollins@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Pravin
B. Rao -- PRao@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Stephanie G.
Wheeler -- wheelers@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell & Steve Y.
Koh -- SKoh@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP.

W. James McNerney, Jr., Defendant, represented by David B Tulchin,
Sullivan and Cromwell, Alexander J. Willscher, Sullivan & Cromwell
Llp, Benjamin R. Walker, Sullivan & Cromwell Llp, Eric D.
Brandfonbrener, Perkins Coie LLC, H. Rodgin Cohen, Sullivan &
Cromwell Llp, Patrick M. Collins, Perkins Coie LLP, Pravin B. Rao,
Perkins Coie LLP, Stephanie G. Wheeler, Sullivan & Cromwell &
Steve Y. Koh, Perkins Coie, LLP.

Scott E. Carson, Defendant, represented by David B Tulchin,
Sullivan and Cromwell, Alexander J. Willscher, Sullivan & Cromwell
Llp, Benjamin R. Walker, Sullivan & Cromwell Llp, Eric D.
Brandfonbrener, Perkins Coie LLC, H. Rodgin Cohen, Sullivan &
Cromwell Llp, Patrick M. Collins, Perkins Coie LLP, Pravin B. Rao,
Perkins Coie LLP, Stephanie G. Wheeler, Sullivan & Cromwell &
Steve Y. Koh, Perkins Coie, LLP.


CAPITAL GROWTH: Faces "Goldman" Suit Over Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Goldman and A & G Goldman Partnership, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated v. Capital Growth
Company, Decisions, Inc., Favorite Funds, JA Primary Limited
Partnership, JA Special Limited Partnership, et al., Case No.
9:14-cv-81125 (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud,
made untrue statements of materials fact and omitted to state
material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading,
engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which
operated as a fraud and deceit upon brokerage customers who
entrusted assets to the Company and who purchased securities
issued by the Defendants in violation of Securities Exchange Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of buying and selling
securities in customer accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley Guy Blackner, Esq.
      BLACKNER STONE & ASSOCIATES
      340 Royal Poinciana Way, St 317-377
      Palm Beach, FL 33480
      Telephone: (561) 659-5754
      Facsimile: (561) 659-3184
      E-mail: LBlackner@aol.com

         - and -

      Joseph George Galardi, Esq.
      Beasley Hauser Kramer & Galardi PA
      505 S Flagler Drive, Suite 1500
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 835-0900
      Facsimile: 835-0939
      E-mail: Galardi@beasleylaw.net


CARLYLE GROUP: Settles Collusion Case for $115 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Heath, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
The Carlyle Group paid $115 million to settle a collusion case on
Aug. 29 less than a week before it was due for a major hearing on
the lawsuit in Boston.

District-based Carlyle was the last of several private equity
firms, including Blackstone Group, KKR and TPG, to settle the
seven-year-old case.  Plaintiffs had alleged that Carlyle and the
other private equity firms had colluded, mostly through e-mail,
not to bid against one another on takeover targets during the mid-
2000s.

Carlyle declined to comment, and a person close to the
negotiations said Carlyle settled the case without admitting any
wrongdoing on its part.

Six private equity defendants had already agreed to pay $475
million to settle the collusion lawsuit.  A group of plaintiffs,
suing in federal court, accused Carlyle, Blackstone Group, TPG
Capital, KKR and others of agreeing among themselves not to bid
against one another in eight corporate takeovers that included
theater chain AMC Entertainment, food service firm Aramark and
casino operator Harrah's Entertainment.  The plaintiffs were
represented by Patrick Coughlin, an experienced class action
attorney.

As the lone holdout, Carlyle had taken a high-risk, high-reward
strategy.  Carlyle faced a legal technicality, known in class
action suits as "joint and several," which makes the remaining
single defendant liable for all the damages incurred by the
alleged conspirators.

In this case, Carlyle would have been on the hook for $10 billion,
which under law can be tripled to $30 billion -- or three times
the value of Carlyle's entire firm.

To avoid that kind of worst-case, apocalyptic verdict, all the
other defendants settled previously.

As one expert in class-action law put it, the other private equity
firms had settled without admitting guilt to reduce the small, but
not negligible, risk of a multi-billion jury verdict down the
road.  One attorney compared it buying health insurance or not.

"If you get sick, you look like you were smart to buy the
insurance," said the attorney.  If you don't get sick, it looks
like a waste of money.

Sources familiar with the case, who declined to be identified
because they had worried that their statements could be used in
court, said Carlyle's three co-founders, William Conway, Daniel
D'Aniello and David Rubenstein, believed they had done nothing
wrong and that settling would encourage similar lawsuits.

Carlyle was represented by Latham & Watkins in the case.

Twenty-seven buyouts were originally part of the case.  A federal
judge in March 2013 threw out claims over alleged collusion before
buyouts were announced.


CHEVRON MINING: Accused by U.S. Government of Polluting Red River
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States of America v. Chevron Mining Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
00783 (D.N.M., August 28, 2014) is brought for environmental
cleanup expenses.

Courthouse News Service reports that a Chevron Mining molybdenum
mine near Questa, N.M., polluted the Red River and groundwater,
the United States claims in New Mexico Federal Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard R. Thomas, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          P.O. Box 607
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 224-1508
          E-mail: howard.thomas@usdoj.gov


CONCORD PREMIUM: Recalls Marc Angelo Smoked Prosciutto Speck
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 27, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Concord Premium Meats Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9189

The food recall warning issued on Aug. 6, 2014 has been updated to
include an additional product.  The additional product was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Concord Premium Meats Ltd. is recalling Marc Angelo brand Smoked
Prosciutto Speck, product of Italy, from the marketplace due to
possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.  Consumers should
not consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 100 g. Marc Angelo Smoked Prosciutto Speck


CONOPCO INC: Faces "Paulino" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucianne Paulino and Latu Fanaika, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Conopco, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05145
(E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014) is brought under the Truth-In-Lending
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George Volney Granade, II, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1808
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: ggranade@reeserichman.com


CR BARD: Faces "McAndrews" Suit Alleging Xenmatrix-Related Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Earl McAndrews v. C. R. Bard, Inc.; and Davol Inc., Case
No. 4:14-cv-02504 (S.D. Tex., August 29, 2014) arises out of the
alleged serious personal injuries of the Plaintiff suffered as a
result of his having a hernia repair with the Defendants'
Xenmatrix porcine collagen mesh.

C. R. Bard, Inc. is a foreign corporation licensed to do business
in the state of Texas.  Davol Inc. is a foreign corporation
business with its principal place of business in Warwick, Rhode
Island.  The Defendants design, manufacture and market mesh
products, including the Xenmatrix mesh implanted into the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Price Ainsworth, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PRICE AINSWORTH, P.C.
          48 East Avenue
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-6061
          Facsimile: (512) 472-9157
          E-mail: price@ainsworth-law.com


DOLLAR TREE: "Reyes" Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Manuel L. Real granted a motion to remand the case
captioned RICHARD REYES, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,
a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
NO. CV 14-4581-R, (C.D. Cal.).

Mr. Reyes filed the motion to remand on July 14, 2014.

In his order dated August 22, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/N4L7fEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Real remanded the
case to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Richard Reyes, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth H Yoon --
kyoon@yoon-law.com -- Kenneth H Yoon Law Offices, Peter M Hart --
hartpeter@msn.com -- Law Offices of Peter M Hart & Stephanie Emi
Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com -- Law Offices of Kenneth H Yoon.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alison Cubre
-- acubre@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Lindbergh Porter,
Jr -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Constance E
Norton -- cnorton@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC.


DOLLARAMA LP: Recalls Galvanized Metal Buckets
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 28, 2014
Posting date:             August 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Laceration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41249

Affected products: Galvanized metal buckets with handle

The recall involves galvanized metal buckets with handles with the
item number 3009097 and the universal product code (UPC)
667888049578.  The item number appears on the product label.

The buckets may have sharp edges on the rim and handle that can
cause cuts or lacerations.

Two incidents involving cuts to hands have been reported to Health
Canada and Dollarama.

Approximately 1,120,848 buckets were distributed to Dollarama
stores across Canada.  The number of buckets sold to consumers is
unknown.

The recalled buckets were manufactured in China and distributed
from June 2009 to July 2014.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Purple East (Hong Kong) Co.
                    Hong Kong
                    China

   Distributor      Dollarama L.P./S.E.C.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the galvanized buckets
with handles and return them to the store to obtain a refund (no
receipts are required).


DUE FRATELLI: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Ortega" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crescencio Ortega, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Due Fratelli, Inc., and Mario Aliano,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-06669 (N.D. Ill., August 28, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Due Fratelli, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located within
the state of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ERGO BABY: Accused by Mom of Deceiving Buyers of Baby Carriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The box for the Ergobaby infant baby carrier does not make clear
to consumers that they must buy an additional sleeve insert to
make the carrier safe for babies under 12 lbs., a mother claims in
class action, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Jillian Circelli-Hawkins sued The Ergo Baby Carrier
Inc. in Superior Court.  Ergo is the only defendant.

Circelli-Hawkins claims she bought an Ergobaby carrier last year
for her newborn baby from the Right Start store in Santa Monica
for about $120.  Nothing on the outside of box indicated she would
need to make an additional purchase, she says.

"It was not until the inadequately labeled and packaged product
was purchased and opened that Circelli-Hawkins discovered that the
'sleeve' insert would be necessary to be purchased in order to use
the device safely for a baby weighing less than 12 lbs.," the
lawsuit states.

The inserts listed on the Ergobaby Web site cost from $25 to $38.

Four competitors of Ergobaby list weight specifications on the
box, Circelli-Hawkins claims.

"Ergobaby's Baby Carrier is also the only carrier on the shelf
that cannot, by itself, be used to carry an 8-lb. baby," the
lawsuit adds.

Calling Ergobaby's labeling and packaging "false, deceptive and
misleading," Circelli-Hawkins seeks an accounting, restitution, an
injunction and damages for deceptive trade, false advertising, and
California law violations.

Ergobaby did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
August 29, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 "C" Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          Telephone: (888) 808-8358
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: jhill@ckslaw.com


ESTEVEZ MARKETS: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Violation of FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Silva v. Estevez Markets, Inc., Foodtown, and John Estevez,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05106 (E.D.N.Y., August 28, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


FERGUSON, MO: Sued for Hurting Six Arrestees During Racial Unrest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Six people sued Ferguson, Mo., and its police force for millions
of dollars on August 28, 2014, claiming they were assaulted and
falsely arrested during the two weeks of racial unrest in the
city, Courthouse News Service reported.

Lead plaintiff Tracey White sued on her own behalf and for her
minor son, W.D.

Named as defendants are Ferguson and its Police Chief Thomas
Jackson, St. Louis County and its Police Chief Jon Belmar,
Ferguson police Officer Justin Cosma, and city and county John Doe
police officers.

The plaintiffs claim they were "subjected to unnecessary and
unwarranted force, arrests that were not based upon probable
cause, and other violations of their constitutional rights."

Nightly protests began after Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson
shot and killed Michael Brown Jr., 18, on Aug. 9.  Brown was
black.  Wilson, like nearly all of Ferguson's police officers, is
white.

The plaintiffs claim they were all "victims of the atrocities
committed by the defendants during the period of August 11-13."

White claims that Officer Cosma arrested her and her son, with
unnecessary force, after a church-sponsored "Peace and Love rally"
on Aug. 13.

Plaintiff DeWayne Matthews Jr. claims that he was trying to walk
to his mother's house on Wednesday night, Aug. 13, when about
eight John Doe officers shot him with rubber bullets, though he
had his hands in the air.

"Plaintiff Matthews fell into a creek or sewer," the complaint
states.  "Defendant John Doe officers pounced on him, slammed his
face into the concrete, and pushed his head underwater to the
point that he felt he was going to be drowned.  Afterward,
defendant John Doe police officers continued to assault him and
spray him with O.C. spray.

"Plaintiff Matthews was arrested for allegedly 'failing to
disperse' even though he had not been involved in any protests of
any kind and was only in the neighborhood to check on his mother."

Plaintiff Kerry White claims he was photographing the protest on
Tuesday night, Aug. 12, when an officer snatched his camera from
his hand, took out its memory card and threw it to the ground.  He
was handcuffed and arrested for "failing to disperse."

Plaintiffs Damon Coleman and Theophilus Green claim they were
photographing the protest on Monday night, Aug. 11, when officers
saw them and "began shooting at them."

"Plaintiffs Coleman and Green raised their hands but the police
continued to fire tear gas and what appeared to be stun grenades
in their direction," the lawsuit states.

"Plaintiffs Coleman and Green were repeatedly shot with rubber
bullets as the police continued to fire as plaintiffs Coleman and
Green got on their knees and presented no threat.

"Plaintiffs Coleman and Green were subsequently placed under
arrest on the unfounded charge of 'failure to disperse.'"

The plaintiffs seek punitive damages for assault and battery,
false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent supervision, failure to train and supervise, and civil
rights violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory L. Lattimer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY L. LATTIMER, PLLC
          1200 G Street NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 638-0095
          Facsimile: (202) 638-0091


FERME FLORALPE: Recalls L'Alpette Cheese Due to Toxin
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 28, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Ferme Floralpe Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9192

Ferme Floralpe Inc. is recalling L'Alpette cheese from the
marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by
Staphylococcus bacteria.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled.  The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures.  Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever.  In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

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

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

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

Affected products: 160 g. L'Alpette Soft ripened sheep cheese with
lot no. 333


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Illegally Reduces Propane Amount, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ekonomy Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a eke markets, a Florida
corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.,
Amerigas Propane, Inc., Amerigas Propane, L.P., Amerigas Partners,
L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02432 (D. Kan., August
28, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the
amount of propane they would put in their tanks and thereby raise
the per-pound price of propane across the country.

The Defendants supply propane in exchange tanks to thousands of
gas stations, convenience stores, hardware stores, grocery stores,
and big box retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
      MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD.
      300 N. Mead Street, Suite 200
      Wichita, KS 67202-2745
      Telephone: (316) 262-2671
      Facsimile: (316) 262-6226
      E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com

         - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
              klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com

         - and -

      Ross Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS, ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER, LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Sued in Mo. Over Propane Tanks Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conti's Service Center, Inc., individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P., a limited partnership., Ferrellgas L.P., a limited
partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino, Amerigas Partners,
L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Amerigas
Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-04234 (W.D. Mo., August 28, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' conspiracy to fix the price of propane sold in
exchangeable portable steel tanks commonly referred to as propane
exchange tanks.

The Defendants operate a national propane distribution business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
      WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC
      1100 Main St, Ste 2500
      P O Box 26188
      Kansas City, MO 64196
      Telephone: (816) 421-6620
      Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
      E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com

         - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      Jayne A. Peeters, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
      ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Third Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              jpeeters@steyerlaw.com


FIRST STATE: Mag. Judge Recommends "Summers" Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin issued on August 25, 2014, a
report and recommendation in the case captioned ASHLEY SUMMERS, v.
FIRST STATE BANK, NO. 3:13-0439, (M.D. Tenn.).

The Court had referred the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
to the Magistrate Judge for a report and recommendation on
April 11, 2014.

Magistrate Judge Griffin's report and recommendation, available at
http://is.gd/JzUenrfrom Leagle.com, recommended that the
Defendant's motion to strike the declaration of Trevor Heck be
denied; and the Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted
and the action be dismissed with prejudice.

Ashley Summers, Plaintiff, represented by Clinton H. Scott --
cscott@gilbertfirm.com -- Gilbert Russell McWherter PLC & Gary F.
Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Ltd.

First State Bank, Defendant, represented by Derek W. Edwards --
derek.edwards@wallerlaw.com --  Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis &
Todd Ryan Hambidge -- todd.hambidge@wallerlaw.com -- Waller,
Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Attorneys Mull Nationwide Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that General Motors Co.'s record recalls of nearly 30 million cars
and trucks across the globe, including those for ignition-switch
defects, has so tainted the brand that every one of its customers
has lost money, according to plaintiffs attorneys planning a
nationwide class action against GM next month.

That claim will be the heart of a consolidated complaint lead
attorneys in the ignition-switch litigation plan to file by
Oct. 14.  GM, which has sought to limit its legal liability to
claims arising from the ignition switch, moved in U.S. bankruptcy
court on Aug. 1 to ban consumer class actions filed over the
subsequent recalls.

"As there's a deluge of information about problems with GM's
safety involving not just switches but all defects, the brand name
'GM' has been tarnished," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and co-lead counsel for
the plaintiffs steering committee in the ignition-switch
litigation.  "The brand itself has taken a beating and, as a
result, all these cars have suffered."

GM spokesman James Cain declined to comment.  The company's chief
counsel in the multidistrict litigation is Andrew Bloomer --
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- a partner at Chicago's Kirkland &
Ellis.

While the ignition switch has been the focus of congressional
inquiries and an internal investigation by GM, which has
acknowledged 13 deaths caused by the problem, the other defects
have gone largely unnoticed even as they affected millions of
additional cars and trucks.

The recalls arose from various malfunctions, including additional
ignition problems, steering wheels, airbags, electrical systems,
transmissions, brakes and seat belts.  Some have been identified
as having caused accidents and injuries.  At least one resulted in
three deaths.

More than 100 lawsuits have been filed on behalf of consumers who
claim their vehicles have lost value due to the ignition-switch
recalls.  But at least half a dozen cases have cited recalls
involving as many as 35 additional defects -- most of which
involve safety issues.  The plaintiffs assert that GM knew of the
defects well in advance of the recalls, in some cases issuing
service bulletins to dealers but not telling customers or the U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Many of the class actions cite an electronic power-steering recall
of more than 1.3 million Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn cars made
between 2004 and 2010. A March 31 recall involved a defect that
could make vehicles switch from power steering to manual on their
own.

In 2010, GM recalled Chevy Cobalt and Pontiac G5 models over the
problem. But it didn't recall additional marques, like the Saturn
Ion, which the traffic safety administration began investigating
in 2011 following consumer complaints, the suits say.

The plaintiffs also cite a 2011 email from a senior engineer to GM
chief executive officer Mary Barra, then senior vice president for
global product development, about the Ion's power-steering
problem.

Another recall cited in the lawsuits involved nearly 1.2 million
cars and trucks, made between 2008 and 2013, with defective wiring
harnesses that could disable airbags and seat belts during
crashes.  Since 2008, GM had released at least six service
bulletins involving the defect but didn't issue its recall until
March 17.

Two cases cite 35 defects.  But Mr. Berman, who is involved in
both of those cases, said defects in subsequent recalls would be
added to the consolidated case.  He declined to say how much his
team estimates GM cars have dropped in value but insisted that
it's not just the ones being recalled.

                       Bigger Than Toyota

"The diminution we're seeing is much higher than we found in the
Toyota case," said Mr. Berman, who was co-lead of the plaintiffs
steering committee that obtained a $1.6 billion consumer class
action settlement with Toyota Motor Corp. over its sudden-
acceleration recalls.  "The magnitude of what happened in GM is so
much greater than what happened with Toyota."

Regardless of its scope, the consolidated case faces challenges.
Many state consumer-protection laws require that plaintiffs suffer
some actual injury -- that their car malfunctioned, for example,
said Cari Dawson, chairwoman of the class action practice at
Alston & Bird, who was lead counsel for Toyota in its consumer
litigation.  And GM could challenge certain class representatives'
standing or argue for arbitration, she said.

Most importantly, she said, plaintiffs must prove that GM's
recalls caused their cars' value to decline.  "That can be a
challenge to prove because, in certain instances, looking at the
various price variables and different models and different model
years, you might see values go up," she said.  Prices of used GM
vehicles actually increased during the ignition-switch recalls
compared to the same period the year before, Joe Spina, a senior
analyst at Edmunds.com, wrote in an email to The National Law
Journal.  "Recalls are ever-present in the news cycle, and
shoppers may be experiencing recall fatigue," he wrote.
"Consideration for GM brands on our site has not wavered and
loyalty is still strong."


GFI GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Proposed Merger With CME Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Suprina, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. GFI Group, Inc., Michael Gooch, Colin Heffron, Marisa
Cassoni, Frank Fanzilli, Jr., Richard Magee, CME Group, Inc.,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., and Commodore Acquisition LLC, Case
No. 652668/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 29, 2014) is brought on
behalf of public stockholders of GFI against the Defendants for
breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with CME's proposed
acquisition of all the outstanding stock of GFI.

GFI is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.  The
Company is a leading intermediary in the global over the counter
and listed markets, offering an array of sophisticated trading
technologies and products to a broad range of financial market
participants.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

CME is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
CME operates a derivatives exchange that trades futures contracts
and options on futures, interest rates, stock indexes, foreign
exchange and commodities.  Commodore Acquisition Corp. is a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of CME, and was
established for purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.
Commodore Acquisition LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of CME, and was established for
purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212)-983-9330
          Facsimile: (212)-983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
                  mschreiner@faruqilaw.com


GOURMET SWEETS: Faces "Heras" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Efren Heras and all other non-exempt employees similarly situated
v. LLC Gourmet Sweets, a/k/a Shahazad, LLC, and Mohammad A. Malik,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05134 (E.D.N.Y., August 29, 2014) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley S. Fastman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HARLEY FASTMAN
          2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite S90
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Telephone: (516) 437-7300
          Facsimile: (516) 706-7774
          E-mail: harley@harleyfastman.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Recalls Notebook Computer AC Power Cords
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 26, 2014
Posting date:             August 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41203

Affected products: Hewlett-Packard and Compaq notebook computer AC
power cords

The recall involves Hewlett-Packard and Compaq notebook computer
AC power cords.  The power cords were distributed with HP and
Compaq notebook and mini notebook computers and with AC adapter-
powered accessories such as docking stations.  The power cords are
black in colour and have a "LS-15" molded mark on the adapter end
of the power cord.

The AC power cord can overheat, posing a potential fire and burn
hazard.

Hewlett-Packard has received 29 reports of power cords overheating
and melting or charring resulting in two claims of minor burn and
13 claims of minor property damage in the United States.  HP has
received one confirmed report and one unconfirmed report of power
cord overheating and melting or charring from Canada, with the
confirmed report including a claim of minor property damage.

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

Approximately 446,700 HP and Compaq notebooks, mini notebooks and
AC powered accessories such as docking stations were sold in
Canada with an affected AC power cord.  5,577,000 affected AC
power cords were sold with HP and Compaq notebook and mini
notebook and AC powered accessories in the United States.  The
products were sold at computer and electronic stores, authorized
dealers and online.

The recalled power cords were manufactured in China and delivered
with HP and Compaq notebooks, mini notebooks and AC accessories
sold from Sept. 2010 through June 2012 in Canada and the United
States.

Companies:

   Distributor     Hewlett-Packard Company
                   Palo-Alto
                   California
                   United States

Customers should immediately stop using the recalled power cords
and contact Hewlett-Packard for a free replacement.


ICM PARTNERS: Seeks Dismissal of Intern Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline.com, reports that ICM
Partners is moving fast to quash a potential class action suit
brought by interns that could shine the spotlight on one of
Hollywood's dirty, not-so-secret practices.  ICM head of HR Karen
Abrams began making a series of calls to former interns last week
seeking information supporting ICM's intern program.  The move
comes after Kimberly Behzadi and Jason Rindenau, the plaintiffs
and former interns filed a motion in federal court on Aug. 26 for
reclassification of the suit.  If granted, it could reveal how
much work essentially unpaid assistants perform at ICM and other
agencies while they're seeking academic credit -- a practice that
runs afoul of labor laws.  "We do not comment on on-going
litigation," an ICM spokesperson said on Aug. 29.

ICM's lawyers filed in late July to get the matter dismissed and
moved to arbitration.  But Ms. Abrams is now contacting former
interns before Ms. Behzadi and Mr. Rindenau's attorneys do.  "She
was reading what was obviously a prepared script given to her by
someone, their lawyers, I would assume," one ex-ICM intern said
after talking to the agency VP last week.  This person had not
been contacted by the plaintiffs' lawyers but only Abrams so far.
"She said that a group of former interns had filed a lawsuit
against ICM claiming that they were actually employees and
demanding unpaid wages as well as attorneys' fees and other
damages," the former intern told Deadline.  "She said that ICM had
retained lawyers and would be defending themselves against the
suit, and that their lawyers were going to be contacting all their
former interns this week in order to find interns to depose who
can give information about ICM's program."

Earlier this summer, Abrams had submitted an affidavit to the
court supporting ICM's motion to dismiss.

This is the latest in a series of intern actions that have
battered the media and entertainment industry since the
potentially game-changing June 11, 2013 ruling that unpaid interns
on the Darren Aronofsky-directed Black Swan were actually
employees.  That matter is still before the courts.

First filed on June 17, the action against ICM is now seeking to
include all those who participated in the agency's intern program
from August 26, 2011 until "the date of final judgment in this
action," said last week's classification order motion.  With ICM
Partners generally having three intern sessions annually of about
40 participants each, that could reach into the hundreds for the
potential class action.  ICM did not have an intern program in
Fall 2013 or Spring 2014.

Ms. Behzadi, who was an itern at ICM's NYC offices from
January-May 2012 and a floater assistant from November to mid-
December 2012, recounts in her initial complaint that interns at
ICM performed many of the duties of regular employees without the
benefit of being paid. Unsurprising to anyone who has ever been to
an agency, others I spoke to confirm interns' actual duties.  "We
had a once-a-week lunch lecture from agents on what working at an
agency was really about, so I guess that fulfilled the academic
requirements," one former intern at ICM in 2013 told Deadline.
"Other than that, it was getting coffee, data entry, scheduling
and taking calls."

Another former ICM intern alleges being assigned the work of a
paid assistant after that person was pink-slipped.  "I even
started handling certain emails using the assistant's email
address after I started taking over the tasks from the assistant
that was fired," the ex-intern said.  "All of those things are
tasks that a paid assistant should be doing.  And I think it is
fair to say that a lot of those things would translate to all
interns around Hollywood.

"Is every single agency, studio, and production company in this
town violating the law when it comes to internships?" the source
added.  "Of course they are.  The trade-off for the interns is
that having an internship is the best way to make contacts who can
get you an actual job."

Justin Swartz, Rachel Bien and Sally Abrahamson of NYC's top
labor-issues firm Outten & Golden are representing the plaintiffs
and any future additions to the suit.  Mr. Swartz is also handing
legal duties on a class action launched against NBCUniversal by a
former MSNBC intern and an ex-Saturday Night Live intern.
Elise Michelle Bloom and Steven Hurd of Proskauer Rose's NYC
office and Michelle Annese of the firm's Newark office represent
ICM in this matter.


INTEGRYS ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Integrys Energy Group too cheaply through an unfair to process to
Wisconsin Energy, for $18.58 cash plus 1.128 Wisconsin Energy
shares per Integrys share, or $9.1 billion, shareholders claim in
a class action in Milwaukee County Court.


LANNETT COMPANY: Faces Investor Class Action in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
Philadelphia-based pharmaceutical company artificially inflated
its publicly traded stock prices by failing to disclose alleged
price fixing activities in Connecticut, according to a class
action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

According to the suit, the stock quote for Lannett Company, Inc.,
plummeted on July 16, 2014, when news broke that the Connecticut
Attorney General was investigating the company for participating
in a price fixing scheme with its competitors.  The Connecticut AG
has accused Lannett of violating antitrust laws by dividing up the
state into territories with other pharmaceuticals in order to
inflate the price of the drug digoxin, which is used to treat
heart congestion.

Headquartered in Philadelphia, Lannett manufactures generic drugs
for sale throughout the United States and is publicly traded on
the New York Stock Exchange.

The class action has been filed by David Schaefer on behalf of any
individuals that invested with the company between Sept. 10, 2013
and July 16, 2014.  During that time period, the complaint says,
Lannett submitted public documents demonstrating a steady increase
in net income, with the sale of digoxin making up 23 percent of
the company's revenue.

On July 16, 2014, Lannett issued a press release that it had been
subpoenaed by the Connecticut Attorney General, news that caused
the stock price to fall $8.05 to $39.04.  The plaintiff says that
the sudden drop caused him and other investors to suffer
significant losses and damages.

The action claims that Lannett's publication of quarterly
financial records violated section of the Securities Exchange Act
by purposefully concealing the company's alleged risky behavior.
The purchase of stock by investors was based on the reports, the
claim says, and exposed the investors to a significant risk.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Donovan and Noah Axler
of Donovan Axler, LLC in Philadelphia and New York attorneys
Jeremy Lieberman and Francis McConville.

The federal case ID number is 2:14-cv-05008-LFR.


LEAD INFO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Earny Hernandez v. Lead Info Stream, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06646
(N.D. Ill., August 28, 2014), alleges that the Defendant makes
unsolicited and unauthorized advertising calls to non-customer's
cellular phones without consent via an automatic dialing system.

Lead Info Stream, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with call centers
located in Greeley, Colorado and Guatemala.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Charles Murphy, Esq.
      John Auchter, Esq.
      John Robert McInerney, Esq.
      Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, Esq.
      Peter Scott Lubin, Esq.
      Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq.
      DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
      17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
      Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
      Telephone: (630) 333-0000
      Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
      E-mail: amurphy@ditommasolaw.com
              jauchter@ditommasolaw.com
              jrm@ditommasolaw.com
              paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com
              psl@ditommasolaw.com
              vdt@ditommasolaw.com


LEAR CORP: October 17 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
IF YOU PURCHASED WIRE HARNESS PRODUCTS DIRECTLY FROM LEAR, DENSO,
GS ELECTECH, FUJIKURA, FURUKAWA, SUMITOMO, TOKAI RIKA, OR YAZAKI
BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 2000 AND MAY 5, 2014, YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH LEAR CORPORATION.

A proposed $4.75 million settlement has been reached in In re
Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, MDL 2311, 2:12-cv-00101-
MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), with defendant Lear Corporation.

What is the lawsuit about? This class action litigation and
the proposed settlement relates solely to Wire Harness Products
purchased directly from a defendant.  These proceedings do not
relate to, and have no effect upon, cases involving any other
product or purchaser.  Lear denies all of the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' allegations in this action and has agreed to settle
the matter in order to avoid the expense and burden of further
litigation.

Wire harnesses are electrical distribution systems used to direct
and control electronic components, wiring, and circuit boards in
motor vehicles.  "Wire Harness Products," for purposes of the Lear
settlement, means wire harnesses and the following related
products:
automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond,
automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring terminals, high
voltage wiring, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes,
junction blocks, power distributors, and speed sensor wire
assemblies used in motor vehicles.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs allege that defendants entered into a
conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for Wire Harness
Products by agreeing to rig bids for, and to raise, fix,
stabilize, or maintain the prices of Wire Harness Products in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
further allege that as a result of the conspiracy, they and other
direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products were injured by paying
more for those products than they should have paid, and seek
recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs
and an award of attorneys' fees.

Lear denies the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' allegations, and the
Court has not issued any findings or rulings with respect to the
merits of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims or defendants'
defenses.  This is a settlement with Lear only.  The litigation is
continuing against the remaining defendants.

Who is included? The Settlement Class is composed of
purchasers of Wire Harness Products in the United States directly
from any defendant during the period from January 1, 2000 through
May 5, 2014.  For purposes of the proposed settlement, the
following entities are defendants: Denso Corporation; Denso
International America, Inc.; Fujikura Ltd.; Fujikura Automotive
America LLC; Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; American Furukawa, Inc.;
Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc. f/k/a Furukawa Lear
Corporation and Lear Furukawa Corporation; G.S. Electech, Inc.,
G.S. Wiring Systems Inc., and G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc.; Lear
Corporation; Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.; Sumitomo Wiring
Systems, Ltd.; Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc.; K&S Wiring
Systems, Inc.; Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.); Yazaki
Corporation; Yazaki North America, Inc.; Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.; and
TRAM, Inc.

A Notice of Proposed Settlement was mailed to potential Settlement
Class Members on or about August 18, 2014.  The Notice describes
the litigation and options available to Direct Purchaser
Settlement Class members with respect to the Lear settlement in
more detail.  If you have not received the Notice you may obtain a
copy on the internet at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com or by
calling or writing to the following Class Plaintiffs' Co-Lead
Counsel:

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112-9546
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

What does the settlement provide? Lear has agreed to pay the
amount of $4.75 million (the "Settlement Fund") and to provide the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs with information they may use in the
prosecution of their remaining claims.

Your rights may be affected. If you purchased Wire Harness
Products in the United States directly from any defendant during
the Class Period, you will automatically remain a Direct Purchaser
Settlement Class member as to the Lear settlement unless you
elect to be excluded.  If you wish to remain in the Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action at
this time and your interests will be represented by Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs and by Class Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel.

If you do not want to be bound by the Lear settlement, you must
submit a written request for exclusion, postmarked no later than
October 17, 2014.  If you validly exclude yourself from the Direct
Purchaser Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any decision
concerning the Lear settlement and you can pursue individually any
claims you may have against Lear, but you will not be eligible to
share in the Settlement Fund created by the Lear settlement.

If you stay in the Settlement Class, you have the right to object
to the proposed Lear settlement and to Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion of the Settlement Fund to
pay for litigation expenses, by following the procedures set forth
in the Notice.  Your objection must be filed no later than
October 17, 2014.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on December 3, 2014, to
consider whether to approve the proposed settlement and Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion of the
Settlement Fund to pay Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' litigation
expenses.  The hearing may be continued without further notice.

If you believe you are a member of the Direct Purchaser Settlement
Class, you are urged to obtain a copy of the detailed Notice,
which discusses your rights regarding the Lear settlement.

If you have questions concerning this litigation, you may contact
Class Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel identified above.  Please do not
contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge.

Dated: August 25, 2014

BY ORDER OF:

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division


LITTLE CAESARS: Refuses to Provide Benefits to Same-Sex Couples
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza giant Little Caesars discriminates against gay and lesbian
employees by refusing to provide benefits to same-sex couples, a
former manager claims in court, according to Matt Reynolds at
Courthouse News Service.

On August 27, 2014, Frank Bernard sued Little Caesar Enterprises
of Detroit and its parent company Ilitch Holdings in a Superior
Court complaint for employment discrimination and constructive
termination.

Ilitch Holdings' principals Mike Ilitch and Marian Ilitch own the
third-largest pizza chain in the country.  In addition, the
married couple owns the NHL hockey team the Detroit Red Wings, the
NFL's Detroit Tigers, MotorCity Casino and Champion Foods.

Bernard, who was legally married in California in six years ago,
says he worked for the pizza chain from March to July.  He left
his job in a matter of months, he says, because the company would
not provide health insurance benefits for his husband.

Bernard joined the company as a trainee and was eligible for
benefits after 90 days.  He said in statement that he was
"absolutely shocked" and "hurt" by the company's actions.

"I was incredibly angry that Little Caesar's apparently thought
that they did not have to comply with California law, that they
could discriminate against me as they pleased, and that there
would be no repercussions," Bernard said in a statement.

According to the Aug. 28 complaint, a human resources
representative told him that it was Little Caesars' policy not to
offer benefits to same sex couples.

"Plaintiff was also told that the company was in Michigan and that
they did not have to provide such benefits," Bernard says in his
complaint.

The plaintiff says he told his area manager that the policy
violates California law, and was told to call HR for a second
time.  Bernard says a representative repeated that benefits are
not available to gay couples. He says he left a detailed complaint
on the Little Caesars ethics answering service on July 1.  A week
later, Bernard received a letter from HR confirming that its
policy was to provide benefits only to heterosexual couples.

"Specifically, the letter states in relevant part: 'Spouse means
the one person to whom you are legally married under the laws of
the state in which you reside, including a common law spouse, and
who is the opposite gender from you,'" the 9-page complaint
states.

Bernard says he wrote to Little Caesars informing it of his
constructive termination due to the company's discrimination.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing issued a
right-to-sue letter to Bernard this week, he says.

Bernard seeks damages, costs and wants judge to order the pizza
chain to provide health insurance to gay employees.  He is
represented by Gloria Allred of Los Angeles firm Allred, Maroko &
Goldberg.

Allred said in statement that Little Caesar's policy hurts gay and
lesbian couples "economically and emotionally and denies them the
respect and dignity."

"I am also concerned that Little Caesar policy could deter gay men
and lesbians from applying for employment there, because they will
know that they will be discriminated against there," Allred said.
"This would have a chilling effect on their employment
opportunities."

Little Caesars spokeswoman Jennifer Arapoff told Courthouse News
that the chain is "very proud of our long-standing commitment to
non-discrimination and inclusiveness."

"Out of respect for the legal process, we will not comment on
pending litigation," she wrote in an e-mail.


MARS INC: Removed "Anson" Suit to Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anson v. Mars, Inc., et al., Case
No. 37-2014-00025377-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-
02032-WQH-JLB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3593
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen David Raber, Esq.
          WILLIAMS AND CONNOLLY
          725 12th Street North West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: sraber@wc.com


MRS BPO: Faces "Hansen" Suit in Utah Over Unsolicited Phone Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Hansen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MRS BPO, Case No. 2:14-cv-00633-BSJ (D. Utah,
August 29, 2014) arises from alleged unsolicited telephone sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven D. Crawley, Esq.
          PO BOX 901468
          Sandy, UT 84090-1468
          Telephone: (801) 580-3222
          E-mail: steven@crawleylaw.net


MASS ELECTRIC: Faces "Sierra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel A. Sierra Ramos and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Mass Electric, Inc., Hypower, Inc., Saint
Jean-Pierre, Case No. 1:14-cv-23186 (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages.

The Defendants are energy supplier for commercial and residential
needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASSTOWN MARKET: Recalls Market Seafood Pies Due to Undeclared Egg
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Masstown Market
Distribution:             Nova Scotia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9190

Masstown Market is recalling seafood pies from the marketplace
because they contain egg and wheat which are not declared on the
label.  People with an allergy to egg or wheat should not consume
the recalled products described.

These products have been sold from Masstown Market in Masstown,
Nova Scotia.

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

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

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Chamorro" Suit Over Scholarship Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Durrell Chamorro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:14-cv-01421 (S.D. Ind., August 28, 2014), arises from the
Defendants' recently abandoned rule that prohibited multiyear
athletic scholarships for Division I football players.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association that acts as the governing body of college sports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
      William N. Riley, Esq.
      PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-8787
      E-mail: jwilliams@price-law.com
              wriley@price-law.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1144 W. Lake St., Suite 400
      Oak Park, IL 60301
      Telephone: (708) 628-4960
      Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
              dank@hbsslaw.com


NBTY INC: Faces Suit Over Protein Powder Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that six men from
Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Kentucky and South
Carolina have filed a class action lawsuit against NBTY for
deceptive advertising of its protein powder.

The plaintiffs claim NBTY Inc., United States Nutrition Inc. and
Healthwatchers Inc. violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the
Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act and were unjustly enriched at the cost of the plaintiffs.

Jason Mencer, of Polk County, Fla.; Vincent Dougherty, of
Clearfield County, Penn.; Tim Harrold, of Oregon; Ross Hepburn of
Kentucky; Josh Frasier, of South Carolina; and Cody Walden, of
Colorado purchased Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey Protein at
various stores in their home states over the last several years,
according to a complaint filed Aug. 25 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.

"Defendants feature the name of the ingredient sought by millions
of American consumers, 'whey protein,' by predominantly featuring
it in the name of the product, 'Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey
Protein' on the containers," the complaint states.

The defendants' product is labeled as providing 30 grams of
protein per serving.  However, the defendants' claimed total
protein count of 30 grams per serving is not just whey protein,
but also includes several free-form amino acids, a non-protein
amino acid and a non-amino acid compound, for the purpose of
"protein spiking," according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim once these "protein spiking" agents are
removed from the formula of analysis, and the "bound" amino acid
count is determined, the true content of whey protein in the
product can be determined.

"After scientific testing of the product . . . the actual total
content per serving of whey protein is actually around 21.5 grams
. . . as opposed to 30 grams of protein claims defendants for
their 'whey protein' products," the complaint states.

The defendants mislead consumers by repeatedly referencing whey
protein, but never disclaiming the limited amount of whey protein
that the product actually delivers or making clear that the
product's protein content is only fractionally whey protein,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim they would have purchased another whey
protein product or would have only paid for the whey protein
actually delivered with the product of they would have not been
deceived by the misleading labeling of the product by the
defendants.

The plaintiffs claim since a common protein content test relies on
nitrogen as a measure of protein, this alleged act deceives
customers into believing they are receiving more whey protein than
is actually contained in the product.

On April 1, the American Herbal Products Association condemned the
act of protein-spiking, according to the suit.

"Despite the knowledge that 'protein-spiking' is misleading to
consumers, defendants continue to advertise, distribute, label,
manufacture and market the product in a misleading and deceptive
manner," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory
damages.  They are represented by Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss
LLP; Nick Suciu III of Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC; and Jordan L.
Chaikin of Parker Waichman LLP.

The case has been assigned to District Judge Leonard D. Wexler.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York case
number: 2:14-cv-05030


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: MDL Court Rules on Motions to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts District Judge Rya W. Zobel ruled on several motions
to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ P. 12(b)(6), filed by clinic-related
defendants from Tennessee and New Jersey in the multidistrict
litigation that stemmed from an outbreak of fungal meningitis
caused by contaminated methylprednisolone acetate ("MPA")
manufactured and sold by the New England Compounding Pharmacy,
Inc., d/b/a New England Compounding Center.  The Tennessee and New
Jersey defendants based their motions to dismiss on alleged
noncompliance with certain state law requirements and failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted.

The motions to dismiss fall into two categories:

     -- The first, brought by the defendants from Tennessee, seeks
dismissal for plaintiffs' alleged failure to comply with the
Tennessee Health Care Liability Act ("THCLA").

     -- The second set of motions focuses on "global claims,"
i.e., claims against defendants alleged in all or a substantial
number of cases.

Each group of the defendants has filed a separate "global claims"
motion: the Tennessee Clinic Defendants; the Saint Thomas
Entities; the Ascension Parties; and the Premier Defendants.

The groups of defendants are:

     1. Tennessee Clinic Defendants

Defendant St. Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical Center, LLC
("STOPNC") is a licensed ambulatory surgery center located in
Nashville, Tennessee. STOPNC purchased contaminated MPA from NECC
and administered it to patients. Defendant Howell Allen Clinic,
P.C. ("Howell Allen"), a neurosurgical group in Nashville, owns a
50% interest in STOPNC and staffs STOPNC pursuant to a management
contract. Defendant John W. Culclasure, M.D., is an employee of
Howell Allen and the medical director of STOPNC. Dr. Culclasure
participated in the decision to purchase MPA from NECC for use at
STOPNC and performed epidural steroid injections using that MPA.
Defendant Debra V. Schamberg, R.N., an employee of Howell Allen
and the facility director of STOPNC, also participated in the
decision to purchase MPA from NECC for use at STOPNC. STOPNC,
Howell Allen, Dr. Culclasure, and Ms. Schamberg have been named,
in various combinations, in suits filed by or on behalf of 117
patients.

Defendant Specialty Surgery Center, Crossville, PLLC ("SSC") is a
licensed ambulatory surgery center in Crossville, Tennessee, that
purchased contaminated MPA from NECC. Defendant Kenneth R. Lister,
M.D., the owner of SSC, participated in the decision to purchase
MPA from NECC for use at SSC and performed epidural steroid
injections using that MPA. Dr. Lister is the sole owner and
employee of his practice, defendant Kenneth Lister M.D., P.C. SSC
is a defendant in suits filed by or on behalf of 24 patients; Dr.
Lister is named in 11 of those actions, and his practice is named
in five.

     2. The Saint Thomas Entities (Tennessee)

The Saint Thomas Entities are comprised of defendants Saint Thomas
West Hospital (formerly known as St. Thomas Hospital), Saint
Thomas Network, and Saint Thomas Health. Saint Thomas Health owns
both Saint Thomas West Hospital and Saint Thomas Network, which in
turn is a co-owner of STOPNC with Howell Allen. The Saint Thomas
Entities are named in vicarious liability claims in dozens of
short-form complaints based on their alleged relationship with
STOPNC.

     3. The Ascension Parties (Tennessee)

The Ascension Parties are defendants Ascension Health Alliance and
Ascension Health, which owns Saint Thomas Health. Some plaintiffs
with claims against the Saint Thomas Entities have also asserted
vicarious liability claims against the Ascension Parties.

     4. The Premier Defendants (New Jersey)

Defendant Premier Orthopaedic Associates and Sports Medicine
Associates of New Jersey, LLC (trading as Premier Orthopaedic
Associates) is an orthopedic practice located in Vineland, New
Jersey, whose providers performed epidural injections of
contaminated MPA obtained from NECC. Most of the injections were
administered at defendant Premier Orthopaedic Associates Surgical
Center, LLC, and were performed by defendant Kimberley Yvette
Smith, M.D., a/k/a Kimberly Yvette Smith-Martin, M.D. The Premier
Defendants have been named in ten actions.

The case is, IN RE: NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING PHARMACY, INC.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 13-02419-RWZ (D. Mass.).  A
copy of the Court's August 29, 2014 Memorandum of Decision is
available at http://is.gd/dbkcM8from Leagle.com.

Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC, Defendant, represented by Franklin H.
Levy, Lawson & Weitzen & Ryan A. Ciporkin, Lawson & Weitzen.

New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., doing business as New
England Compounding Center, Defendant, represented by Frederick H.
Fern, Harris Beach PLLC, Alan M. Winchester, Harris Beach, PLLC,
Daniel E. Tranen, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Geoffrey M. Coan,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Jessica Saunders Eichel, Harris Beach
PLLC & Judi Abbott Curry, Harris Beach, PLLC.

Ameridose LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Winchester,
Harris Beach, PLLC, Matthew P. Moriarty, Tucker Ellis, LLP,
Richard A. Dean, Tucker Ellis, LLP, Thomas W. Coffey, Tucker Ellis
LLP, Matthew E. Mantalos, Tucker, Saltzman & Dyer, LLP, Paul
Saltzman, Tucker, Saltzman & Dyer, LLP, Scott H. Kremer, Tucker,
Heifetz & Saltzman & Scott J. Tucker, Tucker, Saltzman & Dyer,
LLP.

Medical Sales Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel
M. Rabinovitz, Michaels & Ward, LLP, Nicki Samson, Michaels, Ward
& Rabinovitz & Brady J. Hermann, Michaels, Ward & Rabinovitz.

Barry J Cadden, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Winchester,
Harris Beach, PLLC, Robert H. Gaynor, Sloane & Walsh LLP, Bruce A.
Singal, Donoghue, Barrett & Singal, PC, Callan G. Stein, Donoghue,
Barrett & Singal, PC, John P. Ryan, Sloane & Walsh, Michelle R.
Peirce, Donoghue, Barrett & Singal, PC & William J. Dailey, Jr.,
Sloane & Walsh, LLP.

Greg Conigliaro, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Winchester,
Harris Beach, PLLC, John P. Ryan, Sloane & Walsh, Robert H.
Gaynor, Sloane & Walsh LLP & William J. Dailey, Jr., Sloane &
Walsh, LLP.

Lisa Conigliaro Cadden, Defendant, represented by Alan M.
Winchester, Harris Beach, PLLC, Robert H. Gaynor, Sloane & Walsh
LLP, Bruce A. Singal, Donoghue, Barrett & Singal, PC, Callan G.
Stein, Donoghue, Barrett & Singal, PC, John P. Ryan, Sloane &
Walsh, Michelle R. Peirce, Donoghue, Barrett & Singal, PC &
William J. Dailey, Jr., Sloane & Walsh, LLP.

GDC Properties Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph
P. Thomas, Ulmer & Berne LLP, Joshua A. Klarfeld, Ulmer & Berne
LLP & Robert A. Curley, Jr., Curley & Curley P.C..

ARL Bio Pharma, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth B. Walton,
Donovan & Hatem, LLP, Kristen R. Ragosta, Donovan & Hatem, LLP &
Pamela C. Selvarajah, Donovan & Hatem, LLP.

Douglas Conigliaro, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Winchester,
Harris Beach, PLLC, Melinda L. Thompson, Todd & Weld, Christopher
R. O'Hara, Todd & Weld LLP, Christopher Weld, Jr., Todd & Weld,
John P. Ryan, Sloane & Walsh, Robert H. Gaynor, Sloane & Walsh LLP
& William J. Dailey, Jr., Sloane & Walsh, LLP.

Carla Conigliaro, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Winchester,
Harris Beach, PLLC, Melinda L. Thompson, Todd & Weld, Christopher
R. O'Hara, Todd & Weld LLP, Christopher Weld, Jr., Todd & Weld,
John P. Ryan, Sloane & Walsh, Robert H. Gaynor, Sloane & Walsh LLP
& William J. Dailey, Jr., Sloane & Walsh, LLP.

Glenn Chin, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Winchester, Harris
Beach, PLLC, John P. Ryan, Sloane & Walsh, Robert H. Gaynor,
Sloane & Walsh LLP & William J. Dailey, Jr., Sloane & Walsh, LLP.

South Jersey Healthcare, Defendant, represented by Kristin Muir
Mykulak, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP, LOUIS R.
MOFFA, JR., MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP, Michael
B. Hayes, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP & Stephen A.
Grossman, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP.

South Jersey Regional Medical Center, Defendant, represented by
Kristin Muir Mykulak, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP,
LOUIS R. MOFFA, JR., MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP,
Michael B. Hayes, Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP &
Stephen A. Grossman, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP.

Nitesh Bhagat, Defendant, represented by John M. Lovely, Cashman &
Lovely & Joseph R. Lang, Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano,
Cooley, Lang & Casey, LLC.

Carilion Surgery Center New River Valley LLC, d/b/a New River
Valley Surgery Center, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael
Preston Gardner, Leclair Ryan, A Professional Corporation.

Premier Orthopaedic And Sports Medicine Associates Of Southern New
Jersey, LLC, trading as Premier Orthopaedic Associates, Defendant,
represented by Christopher M. Wolk, Law Offices of Jay J.
Blumberg, ESQ. & Jay J. Blumberg, Law Offices of Jay Blumberg.

Premier Orthopaedic Associates Surgical Center, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Christopher M. Wolk, Law Offices of Jay J.
Blumberg, ESQ. & Jay J. Blumberg, Law Offices of Jay Blumberg.

Kimberly Yvette Smith, M.D., also known as Kimberly Yvette Smith-
Martin, M.D., Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Wolk, Law
Offices of Jay J. Blumberg, ESQ. & Jay J. Blumberg, Law Offices of
Jay Blumberg.

Saint Thomas Outpatient Neurosurgical Center, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Alan S. Bean, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLLC, C. J.
Gideon, Jr., Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, John-Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC & Matthew H. Cline, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Howell Allen Clinic, A Professional Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Alan S. Bean, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLLC, C. J.
Gideon, Jr., Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, John-Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC & Matthew H. Cline, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Ocean State Pain Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean
E. Capplis, Ficksman & Conley LLP & Matthew R. Connors, Connors &
Carrol, P.C..

John Culclasure, M.D., Defendant, represented by Alan S. Bean,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLLC, C. J. Gideon, Jr., Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, John-
Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC & Matthew H. Cline,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Debra Schamberg, M.D., Defendant, represented by Alan S. Bean,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLLC, C. J. Gideon, Jr., Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, John-
Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC & Matthew H. Cline,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Insight Imaging, Inc., (See case no. 13-cv-10558-FDS. Counsel
reports that the defendant's correct name is Insight Health
Corp.), Defendant, represented by Albert L. Hogan, III, SKADDEN,
ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Diane Flannery, MCGUIREWOODS
LLP, Matthew J. Matule, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Ron E. Meisler, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Samuel
T. Towell, MCGUIREWOODS LLP & Stephen D. Busch, McGuireWoods LLP.

Saint Thomas West Hospital, formerly known as Saint Thomas
Hospital, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Hoffman, FULBRIGHT &
JAWORSKI, LLP, Marcy H. Greer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson &
Townsent, Sarah P. Kelly, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP, Yvonne K.
Puig, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P., Adam T. Schramek, Fulbright &
Jaworski LLP & Stephen J. Brake, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP.

Saint Thomas Network, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Hoffman,
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP, Marcy H. Greer, Alexander Dubose
Jefferson & Townsent, Sarah P. Kelly, Nutter, McClennen & Fish,
LLP, Yvonne K. Puig, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P., Adam T.
Schramek, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP & Stephen J. Brake, Nutter,
McClennen & Fish, LLP.

Saint Thomas Health, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Hoffman,
FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP, Marcy H. Greer, Alexander Dubose
Jefferson & Townsent, Sarah P. Kelly, Nutter, McClennen & Fish,
LLP, Yvonne K. Puig, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P., Adam T.
Schramek, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP & Stephen J. Brake, Nutter,
McClennen & Fish, LLP.

BKC Pain Specialists, Defendant, represented by Tory A. Weigand,
Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP & Anthony E. Abeln, Morrison
Mahoney LLP.

Adil Katabay, Defendant, represented by Tory A. Weigand, Morrison,
Mahoney, & Miller LLP & Anthony E. Abeln, Morrison Mahoney LLP.

Nikesh Batra, Defendant, represented by Tory A. Weigand, Morrison,
Mahoney, & Miller LLP & Anthony E. Abeln, Morrison Mahoney LLP.

Kenneth R. Lister, M.D., Defendant, represented by Alan S. Bean,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLLC, C. J. Gideon, Jr., Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, John-
Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC & Matthew H. Cline,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Marion Pain Management Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by
James M. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, David
M. Rogers, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC & Robert L.
Boston, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy, PC.

Unifirst Corporation a/d/b/a Uniclean Cleanroom Services,
Defendant, represented by James Rehnquist, Goodwin Procter, LLP,
Abigail K. Hemani, Goodwin Procter LLP, Damian W. Wilmot, Goodwin
Procter LLP, Josh L. Launer, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Michael K.
Murray, Goodwin Procter, LLP & Roberto M. Braceras, Goodwin
Procter LLP.

Medical Advanced Pain Specialists, PA, Defendant, represented by
Clare F Carroll, McCarthy, Bouley & Barry, PC.

David M. Schultz, M.D., Defendant, represented by Clare F Carroll,
McCarthy, Bouley & Barry, PC.

Ascension Health, Defendant, represented by Marcy H. Greer,
Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsent & Sarah P. Kelly, Nutter,
McClennen & Fish, LLP.

Ascension Health Alliance, Defendant, represented by Marcy H.
Greer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsent & Sarah P. Kelly,
Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP.

Specialty Surgery Center, PLLC, Defendant, represented by Alan S.
Bean, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLLC & Chris J. Tardio, Gideon,
Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Saint Thomas Hospital West f/k/a Saint Thomas Hospital, Defendant,
represented by Adam T. Schramek, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Marcy
H. Greer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson & Townsent, Sarah P. Kelly,
Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP & Stephen J. Brake, Nutter,
McClennen & Fish, LLP.

Advanced Pain & Anesthesia Consultants PC d/b/a APAC Centers for
Pain Management, Defendant, represented by Tory A. Weigand,
Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP & Anthony E. Abeln, Morrison
Mahoney LLP.

Randolph Y. Chang, M.D., Defendant, represented by Tory A.
Weigand, Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP & Anthony E. Abeln,
Morrison Mahoney LLP.

Kenneth Lister, M.D., P.C., Defendant, represented by Chris J.
Tardio, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Image Guided Pain Management, P.C., Defendant, represented by
Nancy Fuller Reynolds, Leclair Ryan, A Professional Corporation.

Cincinnati Pain Management Consultants, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Tory A. Weigand, Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP.

Cincinnati Pain Management Consultants, Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Tory A. Weigand, Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP.

Gururau Sudarshan, M.D., Defendant, represented by Tory A.
Weigand, Morrison, Mahoney, & Miller LLP.

Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Maura K. Monaghan, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Wilson Chu, Defendant, represented by Maura K. Monaghan, Debevoise
& Plimpton LLP.

HAHNEMANN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendant, represented by Barbara
Hayes Buell, Smith Duggan Buell & Rufo LLP.

Tenet HealthSystem Hahnemann, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Barbara Hayes Buell, Smith Duggan Buell & Rufo LLP.

Abbeselom Ghermay, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Masters
Fraley, Fraley & Fraley LLP.

Dallas Back Pain Management/Momentum Pain Management, Defendant,
represented by Elizabeth Masters Fraley, Fraley & Fraley LLP.

Nasareth Hospital, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Divis,
Gerolamo, McNulty, Divis & Lewbart & Frank A. Gerolamo, Gerolamo,
McNulty, Divis & Lewbart.

Mercy Health System of S.E. Pennsylvania, Defendant, represented
by Daniel J. Divis, Gerolamo, McNulty, Divis & Lewbart & Frank A.
Gerolamo, Gerolamo, McNulty, Divis & Lewbart.

Dr John Mathis, Defendant, represented by Nancy Fuller Reynolds,
Leclair Ryan, A Professional Corporation.

Robert O'Brien, Defendant, represented by Nancy Fuller Reynolds,
Leclair Ryan, A Professional Corporation.

MD WILLIAM A. ANDERSON, Defendant, represented by Brook Hastings,
O'brien & Ryan.

THE ROTHMAN INSTITUTE, Defendant, represented by Brook Hastings,
O'brien & Ryan.

The Rothman Institute at Nazareth Hospital, Defendant, represented
by Brook Hastings, O'brien & Ryan.

Chance Baker, Movant, represented by Lauren Ellerman, Frith &
Ellerman Law Firm, P.C..

Ferman Wertz, Movant, represented by Lauren Ellerman, Frith &
Ellerman Law Firm, P.C..

Patrick Johnston, Movant, represented by Lauren Ellerman, Frith &
Ellerman Law Firm, P.C..

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Chapter 11 Case
of New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by David J. Molton, Brown Rudnick LLP, Anne Andrews,
Andrews & Thornton, Rebecca L. Fordon, Brown Rudnick LLP & William
R. Baldiga, Brown Rudnick LLP.

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by
Christine J. Wichers, United States Attorney's Office MA.

Roanoke Area LichtensteinFishwick Intervenors, Roanoke Area
LichtensteinFishwick Intervenors, Interested Party, represented by
Gregory Lee Lyons, LICHTENSTEINFISHWICK PLC.

J. Does 1-4, Interested Party, represented by Michael J. Pineault,
Clements & Pineault, LLP.

John Doe, John Doe c/o Paul W. Shaw, Interested Party, represented
by Paul W. Shaw, K & L Gates LLP.

J. Does 5-10, Interested Party, represented by Mark D Smith,
Laredo & Smith, LLP.

Orlando Center for Outpatient Sugery, LP, doing business as
Orlando Center for Outpatient Surgery, Interested Party,
represented by Theresa A. Domenico, McCumber, Daniels, Buntz,
Hartig & Puig, P.A..

OSMC, Interested Party, represented by Robert James Durant,
Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP.

Victory Mechanical Services, Inc., Interested Party, represented
by Michael P. Sams, Kenney & Sams, P.C..

Victory Heating & Air Conditioning Co., Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Michael P. Sams, Kenney & Sams, P.C..

Carlos Jassir, M.D., Pain Management Center of West Orange,
Interested Party, represented by Richards H. Ford, Wicker, Smith,
O'Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A..

Virginia Crandall & Katt Plaintiffs, Interested Party, represented
by Patrick Thomas Fennell, CRANDALL & KATT.

Erlanger Health System, Objector, represented by Arthur P. Brock,
Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, PC, Cara E. Weiner, Spears,
Moore, Rebman, & Williams, PC & John B. Bennett, Spears, Moore,
Rebman & Williams, PC.

Neurosurgical Group of Chattanooga, doing business as Chattanooga
Neurosurgery & Spine, Objector, represented by C. J. Gideon, Jr.,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio, Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC, John-Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC &
Matthew H. Cline, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Specialty Surgery Center, PLLC, Objector, represented by C. J.
Gideon, Jr., Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, John-Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC & Matthew H. Cline, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Dr. Donald Jones, M.D., Objector, represented by Alan S. Bean,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLLC, C. J. Gideon, Jr., Gideon, Cooper &
Essary, PLC, Chris J. Tardio, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC, John-
Mark Zini, Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC & Matthew H. Cline,
Gideon, Cooper & Essary, PLC.

Liberty Industries, Inc., Objector, represented by Nicole D.
Dorman, Law Office of Nicole D. Dorman, LLC, Peter G. Hermes,
Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing, Scott S. Spearing, Hermes,
Netburn, O'Connor & Spearing & Dianne E. Ricardo, Hermes, Netburn,
O'Connor & Spearing.

Southeast Michigan Surgical Hospital, Objector, represented by
Kathryn J. Humphrey, Attorneys for Southeast Michigan & Steven
Weiss, Shatz, Schwartz & Fentin P.C..
Surgical Park Center, Ltd., Objector, represented by Cari A. Wint,
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, Mark P. Goodman, Debevoise & Plimpton,
LLP & Maura K. Monaghan, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

HCA Health Services of Tennessee, Inc., also known as Centennial
Medical Center, Objector, represented by Cari A. Wint, Debevoise &
Plimpton, LLP, Mark P. Goodman, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP & Maura
K. Monaghan, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Michigan Pain Specialists, PLLC, Objector, represented by C. Mark
Hoover, Hackney, Grover, Hoover & Bean, David M. Thomas, RUTLEDGE,
MANION, RABAUT, TERRY & THOMAS, P.C., & Randy J. Hackney, Hackney,
Grover, Hoover & Bean.

Thorek Memorial Hospital, Objector, represented by Kip J. Adams,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Scott C. Bentivenga, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP & Thomas J. Schlesinger, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Surgery Center Associates of High Point, LLC, Objector,
represented by Carrie A. Hanger, Smith, Moore, Leatherwood, LLP &
Terrill J. Harris, Smith, Moore, Leatherwood, LLP.

Baltimore Pain Management Center, Objector, represented by
Michelle J. Marzullo, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

North Carolina Orthopaedic Clinic, Objector, represented by Mark
E. Anderson, McGuireWoods LLP.

Martin Kelvas, Objector, represented by Eric J. Hoffman, FULBRIGHT
& JAWORSKI, LLP, Marcy H. Greer, Alexander Dubose Jefferson &
Townsent & Yvonne K. Puig, FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P..

The South Bend Clinic, LLP, Objector, represented by David E.
Fialkow, Nelson Mullins.

Surgery Center of Wilson, LLC, Objector, represented by C. Houston
Foppiano, Batten Lee PLLC, David H. Batten, Batten Lee PLLC & G.
Adam Moyers, Batten Lee PLLC.

Forsyth Street Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, Objector,
represented by Emmittee H. Griggs & Jason D Lewis, Chambless
Higdon Richardson Katz & Griggs.
Neuromuscular and Rehabilitation Associates of Northern Michigan,
and its employees, Objector, represented by Brett J. Bean,
Hackney, Grover, Hoover & Bean & Timothy J. Dardas, Hackney,
Grover, Hoover & Bean.

Insight Health Corp., Objector, represented by Albert L. Hogan,
III, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP, Christopher E.
Trible, McGuireWoods, LLP, Clinton R. Shaw, Bonner, Kiernan,
Trebach & Crociata, LLP, Diane Flannery, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Matthew
J. Matule, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Ron E.
Meisler, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Samuel T.
Towell, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Stephen D. Busch, McGuireWoods LLP &
James F. Neale, McGuireWoods LLP.

Greenspring Surgical Center, Objector, represented by John T. Sly,
Waranch & Brown, LLC.

Dr. O'Connell's Pain Care Center, Inc., Objector, represented by
William E. Christie, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. & Benjamin T. Siracusa
Hillman, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A..

Rochester Brain and Spine Neurosurgery & Pain Management, LLC,
Objector, represented by Alan J Bozer, Phillips Lytle, LLP, Joanna
J. Chen, Phillips Lytle, LLP & Michael E. Hager.

Dr. O'Connell's Pain Care Center, Objector, represented by William
E. Christie, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. & Benjamin T. Siracusa
Hillman, Shaheen & Gordon, P.A..

Pain Consultants of West Florida, Objector, represented by Halley
M. Stephens, Fuller, Mitchell, Hood & Stephens, LLC.

Doylestown Hospital, Objector, represented by John B. Reiss,
Doylestown Hospital.

Allegheny Pain Management, P.C., Objector, represented by Allen P.
Neely, McQuaide, Blasko, Inc..

Encino Outpatient Surgery Center, Objector, represented by Cynthia
A. Palin, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz.

Harford County Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC, Objector,
represented by Thomas J. Althauser, Eccleston and Wolf, P.C..

Interventional Spine & Sports Medicine, PC, Objector, represented
by Martin S. Hyman, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP &
Matthew C. Daly, Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP.

High Point Surgery Center, Objector, represented by Carrie A.
Hanger, Smith, Moore, Leatherwood, LLP & Terrill J. Harris, Smith,
Moore, Leatherwood, LLP.

Sahara Outpatient Surgery Center, Ltd., Objector, represented by
Cari A. Wint, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, Mark P. Goodman,
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP & Maura K. Monaghan, Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP.

Pain Associates of Charleston, LLC d/b/a InverveneMD, Objector,
represented by Robert Homes Hood, Jr., Hood Law Firm.

Universal Pain Management Medical Coporation, doing business as
Universal Pain Management, Objector, represented by Paul M.
Corson, Law, Brandmeyer Packer, LLP.

Pain Medicine Specialists P.A., Objector, represented by Gregory
K. Kirby, Pessin Katz Law, P.A..

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Objector,
represented by Brian M. Cullen, Law Offices of Steven B. Stein.

Surgcenter of Bel Air, LLC, Objector, represented by Gregory K.
Kirby, Pessin Katz Law, P.A..

Box Hill Surgery Center, LLC, Objector, represented by Gregory K.
Kirby, Pessin Katz Law, P.A..

Baltimore Pain Management Center, Objector, represented by
Michelle J. Marzullo, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C..

Pharmacists Mutual Insurance Company, Objector, represented by
Nancy D. Adams, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC.

Paul D. Moore, in his capacity as Chapter 11 Trustee of the
Defendant New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a New England
Compounding Center, Trustee, represented by Jennifer Mikels, Duane
Morris LLP, Michael R. Gottfried, Duane Morris LLP, Frederick H.
Fern, Harris Beach PLLC, Jessica Saunders Eichel, Harris Beach
PLLC & Thomas B.K. Ringe, III, Duane Morris LLP.

Tennessee, State of, Intervenor, represented by Joseph Ahillen,
Office of Attorney General & Mary M. Bers, Office of Attorney
General.

             About New England Compounding Pharmacy

New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc., filed a Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. D. Mass. Case No. 12-19882) in Boston on Dec. 21, 2012,
after a meningitis outbreak linked to an injectable steroid,
methylprednisolone acetate ("MPA"), manufactured by NECC, killed
39 people and sickened 656 in 19 states, though no illnesses have
been reported in Massachusetts.  The Debtor owns and operates the
New England Compounding Center is located in Framingham, Mass.  In
October 2012, the company recalled all its products, not just
those associated with the outbreak.

Paul D. Moore, Esq., at Duane Morris LLP, in Boston, has been
appointed as Chapter 11 Trustee of NECC.  He is represented by
Jeffrey D. Sternklar, Esq., at DUANE MORRIS LLP.

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors appointed in the case
has been represented by BROWN RUDNICK LLP's William R. Baldiga,
Esq., Rebecca L. Fordon, Esq., Jessica L. Conte, Esq., and David
J. Molton, Esq.


NEW ORLEANS: State High Court to Hear Appeal Over Teacher Layoffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Dreilinger, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the first
week of September looms large in the courts for Louisiana public
school teachers and their bosses.  The state Supreme Court will
hear appeals of two prominent cases:

   -- Gov. Bobby Jindal's controversial law weakening teacher
tenure

   -- The class-action fight of more than 7,000 New Orleans public
school staff who were laid off after Hurricane Katrina.

The former New Orleans employees charge they were denied a
meaningful opportunity to contest the layoffs and deprived of
their right to be rehired when schools reopened after the storm.
The Orleans Parish School Board responded that it had very few
openings afterwards, because almost all the city's schools
reopened under state authority or became independent charters in
charge of their own hiring.  The state Education Department, also
a defendant in the suit, said the law enabling the state takeover
did not require rehiring former staff.

At trial and in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, judges ruled in
favor of the teachers.  The damages could be enormous, although
some legal experts say it's unlikely the Orleans and state systems
would have to pay in full.

Brent Barriere is lead attorney for the School Board, Suzette
Bagneris and Willie Zanders for the plaintiffs.

The other case challenges Act 1 of the 2012 legislative session.
It removed many of the protections of teacher tenure.  It set a
new job evaluation system for teachers based half on student test
scores.  Teachers judged ineffective may be fired.

Spearheaded by the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, the suit has
bounced back and forth between courts.  In January, Judge Michael
Caldwell of the 19th District Court in Baton Rouge ruled against
Jindal for a second time.  He said the law violated the state
Constitution by bundling together too many unrelated items.

Since then, the political landscape has changed both locally and
nationally.  The Legislature recently amended Act 1 to strengthen
teachers' voice in layoff hearings. On the other side, a
California judge ruled that various teacher tenure protections
violated students' rights to a high-quality education in that
state, by letting ineffective teachers to keep their jobs. That
decision is reverberating around the country.

Charles Samuel is arguing the Louisiana case for the teachers,
Jimmy Faircloth for the Jindal administration.

The Supreme Court scheduled the Katrina case Thursday, Sept. 4,
and the tenure case Friday, Sept. 5.

A separate suit challenging Act 1, filed by a Monroe teacher
threatened with dismissal, is on the court's docket.  But it was
settled this week, lawyer Brian Blackwell said.  He said he was
working with several other educators who had filed suits
challenging Act 1.  However, they are all on hold until the
Supreme Court decides the current case.


NFL RETIREMENT PLAN: Greg Hill Denied Degenerative Disability
-------------------------------------------------------------
A retired NFL running back should not get higher monthly benefits
because football may not have caused his disabilities, reports
Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Greg Hill played six seasons in the league, qualifying him for
pension and disability benefits through the 2009 Bert Bell/Pete
Rozelle Player Retirement Plan.  He was awarded Social Security
Disability benefits in 2010 for memory problems, blackouts,
headaches and other symptoms, the ruling states.

There are two categories for disabled former players under the
retirement plan: "football degenerative" and "vested inactive."
The latter applies to players whose disability arises out of
something "other than league football activities" while the
football degenerative designation is for football-related
disabilities, according to the ruling.

A claims committee denied Hill's request for football degenerative
status in 2011, citing medical records in his application and a
doctor's report.  "The committee noted that it did not find Hill's
disabling condition to arise out of football activities," the
ruling states.

Hill then went to see a different orthopedist who thought his
permanent disability did come from playing football, so Hill
appealed the committee's denial.

After that appeal was denied in March 2012, Hill sued the
Bell/Rozelle Plan.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Don Bush granted the
defendant summary judgment on August 26, 2014.

"The court finds that the board did not abuse its discretion in
denying Hill football degenerative benefits," he wrote.
"Acknowledging that Hill had injuries related to football is not
in and of itself a finding of disability.  The narratives attached
to [doctors'] reports indicate the reasoning that he was not
[totally and permanently] disabled due to league football
activities."

Hill played for the Kansas Chiefs from 1994-1997, for the St.
Louis Rams in 1998 and the Detroit Lions in 1999.  He recorded one
career touchdown.

The case is Gregory Hill v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player
Retirement Plan, Case No. 4:13-cv-00074-RAS-DDB, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division.


OCEAN ONE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Rodriguez and Victor Sobrado, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. Ocean One at 194th Condo. Assoc.,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-23188 (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2014), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ocean One at 194th Condo. Assoc., Inc. is a real estate broker
based in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Brian Reinfeld, Esq.
      DILL & REINFELD, PLLC
      18260 NE 19th Ave., Suite 202
      North Miami Beach, FL 33162
      Telephone: (754) 263-2063
      Facsimile: (954) 628-5054
      E-mail: dan@reinfeldlaw.com


PELLA CORP: "Pohutsky" Suit Moved From Maryland to South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pohutsky v. Pella Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02565, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland to the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina (Charleston).  The South Carolina
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-03491-DCN to the
proceeding.

The class action is brought on behalf of consumers, who own
structures containing Pella Architect and Designer series windows.
Plaintiff Andrew Pohutsky contends that the Windows contain a
latent defect that allows water to penetrate through four common
paths: the glazing pocket, the cladding, the casement crank
hardware and the frame-to-sash joint.  He adds that the water
leaks into the interior of the home, damaging wood members within
the cladding, the wall cavity and adjacent finishes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gary@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John P. Mandler, Esq.
          FAEGRE, BAKER LAW FIRM
          90 South Seventh Street
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: john.mandler@faegrebd.com


PFIZER INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pfizer, Inc., G.D.
Searle LLC and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00452-HCM-LRL (E.D. Va., August 29, 2014) alleges violations of
antitrust laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
          DIMURO GINSBERG PC
          1101 King Street, Suite 610
          Alexandria, VA 22314-2956
          Telephone: (703) 684-4333
          Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
          E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com

               - and -

          William Henry Narwold, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church St., 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1676
          Facsimile: (880) 882-1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com


PFIZER INC: B.C. Sup. Ct. Ruling Puts Innovator Profits at Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Tait, Esq. -- dtait@mccarthy.ca -- Steven Tanner, Esq. --
stanner@mccarthy.ca -- and Brandon Kain, Esq. -- bkain@mccarthy.ca
-- at McCarthy Tetrault LLP report that in Canada, innovator drug
companies can protect their market exclusivity from generic
copycats by asserting patents against the generic manufacturer in
litigation under the PM(NOC) Regulations.  Until now, the
consequences of losing PM(NOC) litigation was the potential
payment of damages to the generic whose market access was delayed
by the litigation.  These so-called "section 8 damages" are
limited to the actual loss suffered by the generic during that
specific period of delay.  Public policy is such that the profits
earned by the innovator during that period cannot, however, be
disgorged pursuant to section 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations.

In this potential class action, however, the representative
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the profits Pfizer earned during
the period it prevented generic competition from Teva for VIAGRA
by asserting a patent that was ultimately found invalid in PM(NOC)
litigation.  The plaintiff's claim is based on the theory that
people overpaid Pfizer for VIAGRA relative to what they could have
paid had Pfizer not wrongfully delayed generic competition through
the assertion of an invalid patent.

The plaintiff asserts three causes of action: (1) unlawful
interference with economic relations; (2) waiver of torts; and (3)
unjust enrichment.  The proposed class includes all British
Columbia residents who purchased VIAGRA between January 1, 2006
and November 30, 2012, representing the period from Teva's
application for generic approval to the decisions invalidating and
voiding its VIAGRA patent.

While a class has yet to be certified, the recent motion decision
in Low v. Pfizer signals a potential significant paradigm shift,
whereby profits earned by innovators during PM(NOC) litigation,
are at risk.  Justice Smith refused to strike some significant
aspects of the plaintiff's claim on a preliminary motion, holding
that it was not "plain and obvious" that all of the plaintiff's
causes of action were futile.

This watershed ruling raises the spectre of significant economic
liability in future class actions against innovators who
frequently engage the special patent enforcement provisions of the
PM(NOC) Regulations.


PRECISION AUTO: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of Telephone Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Phelps, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Precision Auto Protection LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01377
(C.D. Cal., August 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Precision Auto Protection LLC is engaged in car rental business
within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022

         - and -

      Roger R. Carter, Esq.
      THE CARTER LAW FIRM
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-4737
      Facsimile: (949) 260-4754
      E-mail: rcarter@carterlawfirm.net

         - and -

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


PUCKETTS 5TH: Faces "Brewer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Brewer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pucketts 5th and Church, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01769
(M.D. Tenn., August 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages.

Pucketts 5th and Church, Inc. owns and operates multiple
restaurants within the Middle District of Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randall W. Burton, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL W. BURTON
      144 Second Avenue, North, Suite 212
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 620-5838
      Facsimile: (615) 620-5837
      E-mail: rburtonlaw@gmail.com

           - and -

      Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
      ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
      Suite 4500, 111 West Second Street
      Jamestown, NY 14701
      Telephone: (716) 664-2967
      Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
      E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net


PURE BIOMED: Sued Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------
Christopher Lowe Hicklin DC Plc d/b/a Clark Road Chiropractic, a
Florida limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Pure
Biomed LLC and John Does 1- 10, Case No. 8:14-cv-02118 (M.D. Fla.,
August 28, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by Junk Fax
Prevention Act.

Pure Biomed LLC is a Nevada limited liability company that
specializes in all-natural topical Reunion pain relief products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


RENTAL XPRESS: "Escobar" Case Certified as Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in MARCUS ESCOBAR, ET. AL, Plaintiffs, v. RENTAL
XPRESS, LLC, ET. AL, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-14-CV-267-XR,
(W.D. Tex.) bring this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) suit on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees
pursuant to the "collective action" provisions of 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b). Plaintiffs were employed as service technicians
for Defendants Rental X press, LLC, Janie Middleton and Kenneth
Middleton. Plaintiffs allege they, as service technicians, (1)
worked in excess of sixty hours per week without proper overtime
compensation, and (2) suffered improper pay deductions. Plaintiffs
also allege that Defendants did not properly track their hours
worked on time cards or sheets.

District Judge Xavier Rodriguez, in an order dated August 25,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/5STi5Jfrom
Leagle.com, held that the Plaintiffs' allegations and affidavits
are sufficient to allow an initial conditional certification of
the case as a collective action. Therefore, the Court grants the
Plaintiff's motion and conditionally certifies the case as a
collective action.

Marcus Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Michael V. Galo, Jr. --
mgalo@galolaw.com -- Galo Law Firm, P.C.

Mario Zuniga, Plaintiff, represented by Michael V. Galo, Jr., Galo
Law Firm, P.C.

Nicolas Gamez, Plaintiff, represented by Michael V. Galo, Jr.,
Galo Law Firm, P.C.

Pedro Estrada, Plaintiff, represented by Michael V. Galo, Jr.,
Galo Law Firm, P.C.

Matthew Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Michael V. Galo, Jr.,
Galo Law Firm, P.C.

Rental Xpress, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lamar G. Clemons,
English & Clemons, L.L.P.

Janie S Middleton, Defendant, represented by Lamar G. Clemons,
English & Clemons, L.L.P.

Kenneth Shea Middleton, Defendant, represented by Lamar G.
Clemons, English & Clemons, L.L.P.


ROUTH CRABTREE: "Aguinaldo" Suit Removed to Hawaii District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company removed the class action
lawsuit styled Aguinaldo, et al. v. Wong, et al., Case No. 14-1-
0872-04 VLC, from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (Hawaii).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00388-BMK-NONE to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought under the Truth-In-Lending Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Bickerton, Esq.
          BICKERTON LEE DANG & SULLIVAN
          Fort St Tower
          745 Fort St., Suite 801
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com

               - and -

          Raymond C. Cho, Esq.
          Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq.
          AFFINITY LAW GROUP
          1188 Bishop St., Suite 3408
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (808) 545-4601
          E-mail: vshima@affinitylaw.com

               - and -

          Stanley H. Roehrig, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY H. ROEHRIG
          Hilo Lagoon Centre
          101 Aupuni St., Suite 124
          Hilo, HI 96720
          Telephone: (808) 969-1441
          E-mail: shroehrig@hawaii.rr.com

Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is represented by:

          Lindsay E. Orman, Esq.
          Sharon V. Lovejoy, Esq.
          Andrew James Lautenbach, Esq.
          STARN O'TOOLE MARCUS & FISHER
          Pacific Guardian Center Makai Tower
          733 Bishop St., Suite 1900
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 537-6100
          E-mail: lorman@starnlaw.com
                  slovejoy@starnlaw.com
                  alautenbach@starnlaw.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP on Aug. 29 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who acquired
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. securities issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
January 23, 2014 ("IPO").  Pursuant to applicable law, investors
have until October 27, 2014 to file a motion to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the investor lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company, certain officers and
directors, as well as IPO underwriters, violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because Santander's Registration
Statement filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO did not
disclose that the Company had engaged in improper practices
related to the Company's subprime auto lending business,
misrepresented the quality of the loans the Company had
underwritten and misrepresented the Company's underwriting
standards.

On August 7, 2014, Santander revealed that it had received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice seeking production of
documents related to the underwriting and securitization of
nonprime auto loans since 2007.  Santander's stock price declined
from $18.23 to $17.95, a drop of $0.28 per share.

If you acquired Santander securities during this period and you
are interested in learning more about this matter and any rights
you might have with respect to these claims, contact Meghan
Summers at msummers@kmllp.com by telephone at (212) 371-6600, or
by filling out this form. Please bear in mind that some of these
rights may be time-sensitive.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, whistleblower,
antitrust and consumer litigation.  The firm has specialized in
complex litigation, including securities class actions, for
several decades.


SHELBY COUNTY, AL: Judge Denies Class-Action Status in Acker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for AOL.com, reports that a federal judge has
denied a request by five girls, who say they were among those
sexually abused by former Shelby County teacher Daniel M. Acker
Jr., to treat their lawsuit against him and the school board as a
class action complaint on behalf of potentially hundreds of other
current and former students.

Mr. Acker was sentenced in 2012 to serve 17 years in prison for
eight counts of child sexual abuse after telling police that he
had abused more than 20 students while working as a teacher and
bus driver for the Shelby County school system.  Five current or
former students filed a lawsuit in 2013 against Mr. Acker and the
county school board.

Attorneys for the girls asked that the lawsuit be turned into a
class-action complaint to represent potentially hundreds of other
victims.

U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Hopkins denied the request for
class action status in an order issued Aug. 21.

Judge Hopkins writes that the plaintiffs sought to certify "an
unnumbered class of female students" who attended Shelby County
public schools during the roughly 25-year period Acker was a
teacher and bus driver.

Plaintiffs had asked, the judge noted, to certify a class that
consists of "any current or former female student during the time
period that Dan Acker worked for Shelby County School Board who
was either injured, sexually harassed, abused or molested by
Dan Acker or who witnessed such conduct or who was exposed to a
sexually hostile educational environment through Acker's conduct."

The judge wrote that she found a few problems with the request.
Those were:

   -- The alleged class is not "sufficiently ascertainable."

   -- The proposed class doesn't have enough in common, with
varied contentions against Acker.  "While the named plaintiffs all
claim to be victims of Mr. Acker's molestation, the class they
purport to represent would include an expansive pool of female
students who were not even aware of Mr. Acker's predatory
conduct." the judge wrote.

"This is a grave matter, and the plaintiffs describe serious
accusations against the defendants.  Nothing in the court's
analysis is intended to diminish these facts or to question the
substantive merits of their claims," the judge added.

While they failed to satisfy the rule for class certification, the
"plaintiffs are still fully entitled to seek recourse outside of
the class action format."

Attorneys for the Shelby County school system had said the school
board and its members did not condone Mr. Acker's criminal
conduct, but had argued against the certification of a class.
They stated that if there was a class the judge would ultimately
have to decide individual claims because each would be different,
that managing the proposed class would be unmanageable, and that
potential class members would have a strong Interest in
controlling their own claims.

A trial date has not yet been set in the lawsuit.


SIEMENS HEARING: December 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hausfeld LLP on Aug. 29 issued a statement regarding the HearUSA
Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MTB INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LP, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIEMENS HEARING INSTRUMENTS,
INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:12-cv-00340-SDW-MCA

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PUBLICLY SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF COMMON
STOCK OF HEARUSA, INC. ("HEARUSA COMMON STOCK") BETWEEN
JANUARY 18, 2011 AND JULY 31, 2011, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, a hearing
will be held on December 4, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, at the United States District Court,
Martin Luther King Building and United States Courthouse, 50
Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101, for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the proposed settlement of this action for the sum of
Three Million, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,600,000.00) in
cash, and fifty (50) percent of all notice and administration
costs up to Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class; (2)
whether, thereafter, this action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendant as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of July 1, 2014; (3) whether the proposed plan
to distribute the settlement proceeds (the "Plan of Distribution")
is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and therefore should be
approved; and (4) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred
in connection with this action, together with interest thereon,
and payment to Lead Plaintiff for its expenses incurred
representing the Class.

If you sold or otherwise disposed of HearUSA Common Stock during
the period January 18, 2011 through July 31, 2011, inclusive, your
rights may be affected by this action and the settlement thereof.
If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to
HearUSA Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
58818, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8818, or by downloading this
information at www.hearusasecuritieslitigation.com
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than October 27, 2014,
establishing that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be
bound by any judgment rendered in this action unless you request
to be excluded, in writing, to the above address, postmarked by
October 27, 2014.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than October 9, 2014, as follows:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Martin Luther King Building
and United States Courthouse
50 Walnut Street, Room 4015
Newark, NJ 07101

and received by the following no later than October 27, 2014:

HAUSFELD LLP
WILLIAM P. BUTTERFIELD
BRIAN A. RATNER
TIMOTHY S. KEARNS
NATHANIEL C. GIDDINGS
1700 K St., N.W., Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
LISA J. RODRIGUEZ
Woodland Falls Corporate Park
220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165
Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
JAMES GILLESPIE, P.C.
BRANT W. BISHOP, P.C.
655 15th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Lead Counsel for Defendant Siemens Hearing
Instruments, Inc.

BLANK ROME LLP
STEPHEN ORLOFSKY
DAVID C. KISTLER
301 Carnegie Center
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08650
Liaison Counsel for Defendant Siemens Hearing
Instruments, Inc.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: August 22, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF
NEW JERSEY


SLOAN VALVE: Atty. Fees and Costs Awarded in United Desert Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge S. James Otero granted a motion for attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of expenses, and incentive awards to class
representatives in the case captioned UNITED DESERT CHARITIES,
FRED EDE, III, EMILY WILLIAMS, BRUCE PRITCHARD, and JEAN STEINER,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SLOAN VALVE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
CV12-06878 SJO (SHX), NO. 2:13-CV-02372-SJO-SH., 2:13-CV-02499-
SJO-SH, 2:13-CV-02425-SJO-SH, 2:13-CV-02428-SJO-SH, 1:12-CV-09700,
(C.D. Cal.).

The Court granted Class Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,500,000, reimbursement of
expenses in the amount of $134,076.25, and incentive awards in the
amount of $1,000 for each Class representative.  To the extent
that the Defendants make Settlement Payments in excess of $18
million as provided in Section IV.A.4 of the parties' settlement,
Class Counsel will be awarded 25% of any additional Settlement
Payments so made. Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of expenses, and the incentive awards will be paid in accordance
with the schedules set forth in the Settlement.

A copy of Judge Otero's August 25, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/gpJvRXfrom Leagle.com.


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher W. Legg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61978-JIC (S.D. Fla., August 29,
2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          664 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd.
          Hallandale, FL 33009
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


STANLEY SMITH: Suit Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Smith, an individual v. Stanley Smith Drywall, Inc. and
Stanley Smith, individually, Case No. 3:14-cv-00444-MCR-EMT (N.D.
Fla., August 29, 2014) asserts that the Plaintiff is entitled to
be paid time and one-half of his regular rate of pay for each hour
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week.

Stanley Smith Drywall is an Alabama Corporation, conducting
business in the state of Florida.  Stanley Smith is the owner of
Stanley Smith Drywall.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter J. Solnick, Esq.
          SOLNICK LAW, P.A.
          2999 NE 191st Street, Suite 805
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 629-6530
          Facsimile: (786) 629-6525
          E-mail: pete@solnicklaw.com


STAR BRITE: Recalls Waterproofing With PTEF and Aluminum Polish
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 26, 2014
Posting date:             August 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Aspiration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41213

Affected products: Star brite Waterproofing with PTEF and Star
brite Aluminum Polish sold in 650 mL spray containers

The recall involves Star brite Waterproofing with PTEF and
Star brite Aluminum Polish, sold in 650 mL spray containers.

The recall does not apply to Star brite Waterproofing with PTEF
and Star brite Aluminum Polish sold in other container sizes.

Health Canada has established that that the recalled products pose
aspiration hazards and subsequently do not meet the child-
resistant closure requirements for consumer chemical products
under Canadian law.

The lack of child-resistant packaging could result in
unintentional exposure to this product and lead to serious
illness, injury, or death.  Aspiration occurs when a chemical
product is ingested and then is introduced into the lungs through
coughing and/or vomiting.  It can result in severe adverse health
effects, including pulmonary injury, chemical pneumonia, and
death.

Neither Health Canada nor Star brite Inc. has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.

Approximately 2,707 units of the recalled Waterproofing with PTEF
product and approximately 84 units of the recalled Aluminum Polish
were sold between Jan. 2013 and Aug. 2014 at various retail
locations in Canada.

These products were manufactured in the United States and have
been sold in Canada since at least 2006.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Star brite Inc.
                    Fort Lauderdale
                    Florida
                    United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product(s)
and contact the company for return instructions.


SUPERVALU INC: Faces Class Suit in Massachusetts Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A data breach at Supervalu/New Albertson's exposed customers'
debit and credit cards to theft from June 22 to July 18, a class
action claims in Massachusetts Federal Court, according to
Courthouse News Service.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Loses Bid to Toss $9-Bil. Actos Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge on Aug. 28 refused to toss out a $9 billion
verdict in the first federal bellwether trial over claims that
taking Actos increased the risk of getting bladder cancer.

The jury's April 7 verdict was the first of nearly 3,000 lawsuits
coordinated before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Doherty in
Lafayette, La.

Judge Doherty allowed the jury to hear about an earlier ruling in
which she sanctioned drug manufacturer Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA
Inc. for deleting emails.  She later expanded her ruling to say
Takeda had acted in bad faith.

Judge Doherty rejected motions by Takeda and Eli Lilly and Co.,
another defendant, to reject the verdict as a matter of law,
calling one of their key arguments challenging the evidence in her
sanctions order "troubling."

"Specifically, evidence of the fact that Takeda destroyed files,
and why, is relevant to the questions of Takeda's intent and to
the nature of its conduct, a pivotal aspect inherent in the
punitive-damages claim," she said.

The jury found Takeda and Eli Lilly negligent in marketing the
drug, which is used for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, by
failing to warn about its cancer risks.  The verdict includes
$1.475 million in compensatory damages.

"A 101-page opinion shows the attention and care this judge has
given to this matter," plaintiffs attorney W. Mark Lanier of The
Lanier Law Firm in Houston said.  "Amazingly and painstakenly
detailed."

"We disagree with the ruling and await a ruling on our motion for
a new trial, or alternatively, a significantly reduced punitive
damage award," Takeda senior vice president and general counsel
Kenneth Greisman said in a written statement.  "We continue to
believe that binding legal precedent requires the judge to
disregard the verdict in its entirety and grant a new trial.  The
ruling on that motion is expected in the coming weeks."

He added: "Patient safety is a critical priority for Takeda.  We
believe we acted responsibly with regard to Actos and plan to
vigorously defend the company against these lawsuits."

Eli Lilly spokeswoman Candace Johnson said in a formal statement
that the company planned an appeal.  "While we have empathy for
the plaintiff, we believe the evidence did not support claims that
Actos caused his bladder cancer," she said.  "We remain confident
that Actos is an important option for the treatment of type 2
diabetes and we will continue to defend the company against future
litigation."


TENNCARE: Awaits Decision in Medicaid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Tom Wilemon, writing for The Tennessean, reports that the attorney
for TennCare blamed the federal insurance exchange for Tennessee's
delays processing Medicaid applications, but lawyers representing
people who got lost in the system said during court testimony on
Aug. 29 that the state created its own problems.

After listening to almost three hours of arguments, U.S. District
Judge Todd Campbell said he expects to make a decision this week
on three important motions that will largely determine whether a
federal lawsuit against TennCare moves forward.  The dispute
centers on TennCare's decision to stop staffing state offices with
personnel who helped people fill out Medicaid applications that
went directly to the state agency and, instead, require everybody
to apply through HealthCare.gov, the federal health exchange.

But a behind-schedule $35.7 million state computer system that
can't process income information and other data sent from the
federal exchange is causing months-long delays for people seeking
coverage like Terri Lynn Casola.  She applied for Medicaid for
herself and her 3-year-old son in March and is still waiting to
learn their eligibility status.

"Since that time I've been to the ER with some serious kidney
issues that I've not been able to get resolved or see a doctor,"
she said, noting that bill collectors are calling about $6,000 in
medical debts.

                       State lists issues

She is not one of the 11 plaintiffs named in the suit but could be
if Campbell grants it class-action status.  That's just one of the
motions before the judge.  The plaintiffs are also asking him to
force TennCare to set up a work-around system for determining
eligibility of applicants who have been waiting 45 days or longer.
But the defendants contend that the lawsuit should be dismissed
because all 11 original plaintiffs have now received Medicaid
coverage.

Michael Kirk, a lawyer based in Washington, D.C., who is
representing TennCare, listed a litany of problems the state
encountered when trying to gather information from the federal
files to get those plaintiffs' applications processed.  He said
state officials had "worked their tails" off to get this done and
help up to 100 applicants the Tennessee Justice Center had
notified them about.

TennCare agreed to prioritize up to 100 people waiting on
eligibility status if the Tennessee Justice Center, one of the
organizations suing TennCare, would provide the agency with
details and assist in that effort.  Both sides tried to use this
agreement to their legal advantage.  Mr. Kirk said the process
showed how badly flawed the federal system was, while Chris
Coleman with the Tennessee Justice Center argued these cases
proved the state could serve its citizens better by setting up a
work-around system.

Mr. Kirk spoke for an hour and 49 minutes, outlining seven reasons
that the judge should deny an injunction that would force the
state to set up a work-around system and also deny class-action
status.

Mr. Coleman gave a shorter response.

"The law here is clear," he said.  "Responsibility for this
problem lies with the Bureau of TennCare.  Now, the situation in
which they find themselves is entirely of their determination."

He said Tennessee was the only state that sent all of its Medicaid
applications to the federal exchange.  His point was underscored
by a letter from the U.S. attorney's office on the day of the
hearing.  In a court filing on behalf of Secretary of Health and
Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Assistant U.S. Attorney
Mark Wildasin wrote that the burden for processing Medicaid
applications and determining eligibility lies with the state.

Derrick Simpson watched all the legal arguments from a court bench
and then, after the hearing, told how he would just like to take
his Christmas tree down at his home in Paris.  It's been up since
he went to live with his parents at their Charlotte home.  The
family has been trying since February to get home-care assistance.

"They are spending all this money on computer systems. . . .
That's money that could be well spent on people," Mr. Simpson
said.  "I mean hundreds and hundreds of people, especially the
elderly."


TETLEY USA: Judge Trims Unfair Competition Claim in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that a
California federal judge on Aug. 28 trimmed an unfair competition
claim from a putative class action alleging Tetley USA Inc. made
unlawful and deceptive claims about antioxidants and health
benefits bestowed by its teas, but left intact claims that the
labels were fraudulent and misleading.

U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila said the plaintiff failed to
plead reliance, as required under the Unfair Competition Law on
claims premised on allegedly deceptive advertising, in support of
his allegation that the tea's labels include illegal statements
that constitute "misbranding" and render the product illegal to
sell.

"Plaintiff cannot circumvent the reliance requirement by simply
pointing to a regulation or code provision that was violated by
the alleged label misrepresentation, summarily claiming that the
product is illegal to sell and therefore negating the need to
plead reliance," the judge wrote in his order.

The action comes about a year after the initial complaint was
dismissed in its entirety and subsequently amended.

Plaintiff Daryl De Keczer launched the suit in 2012, taking aim at
the alleged misbranding of Tetley's teas.  The latest complaint
names Tetley's British Blend Premium Black Tea, Green Tea, Classic
Black Tea, Classic Black Tea Decaffeinated, Earl Grey,
Decaffeinated British Blend, Pure Green Tea, Green Tea
Decaffeinated, Iced Tea Blend and Naturally Decaffeinated Iced Tea
Blend.

The New Jersey-based company -- a unit of Indian conglomerate Tata
Global Beverages Ltd. -- allegedly flouted identical California
and federal laws concerning packaged food labeling, even after the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Tetley's competitors
about similar health claims attached to tea products, according to
the complaint.

The complaint takes issue with statements including, "Tetley Tea:
the smart choice for your healthy lifestyle: Like fruits and
vegetables, tea is an excellent source of natural antioxidants
which help boost the body's immune system. So, drink to your
health with Tetley."

On Aug. 28, the judge rejected defense arguments that the
plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, saying the plaintiffs were permitted to pursue
Sherman Law claims, a parallel California state law to the FDCA.
He also shot down Tetley's contentions that the dispute should
instead be resolved administratively by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, and denied arguments that the plaintiff lacked
standing to sue based on several flavors of tea he didn't
purchase, because the teas are substantially similar to the ones
he did purchase.

The plaintiff is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates and J. Price Coleman.

Tetley's is represented by Joseph Clasen -- jclasen@rc.com -- and
Peter R. Knight -- pknight@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP and
Philip A. Leider.

The case is Daryl De Keczer et al. v. Tetley USA Inc., case number
5:12-cv-02409, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


TOTAL LAWN: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Stough" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stough, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Total Lawn Care TLC, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company
and Lonnie Litton, Individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-00198 (N.D. Ga.,
August 28, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.


Total Lawn Care TLC, LLC is engaged in landscaping business with
its principal place of business located at 724 Patrick Industrial
Lane, Winder, Georgia 30680.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan, P. FL
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM


TRAY VOUS: Recalls Snack and Activity Tray
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 2, 2014
Posting date:             September 2, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-40291

Affected products: Tray Vous Snack and Activity Tray with
connectors

The recall involves a three piece unit containing a right and left
side connector and a tray with three Velcro fastening straps.  The
underside of tray displays a sticker reading "Tray Vous Patent
Approved US7942437B2".  The tray is designed to attach to a
stroller.

When the tray is used with the recalled shorter tray connectors,
the opening between the tray and seat bottom of the stroller may
allow an infant's body to pass through and become entrapped at the
neck, posing a head entrapment hazard to young children when a
child is not harnessed.

Neither Tray Vous nor Health Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product.

Approximately 89 units of the recalled product were sold in Canada
at Moms To Be and More in Toronto and Westcoast Kids (Calgary,
Edmonton, and Richmond).

Approximately 770 units of the recalled product were sold in the
United States.

The recalled product was manufactured in the United States and
Taiwan sold from May, 2011 through June, 2012.

Companies:

   Distributor     Tray Vous LLC
                   San Diego
                   California
                   United States

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snack and
activity tray with connectors and contact Tray Vous for free
replacement parts.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wants to Hide Insurance Policy From Reporters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Uber ride-sharing service,
which has been sued repeatedly by cab drivers who claim it
competes unfairly by ducking licensing regulations, has turned the
tables on Columbus, Ohio, suing it to try to stop the city from
giving reporters a copy of an insurance policy it submitted in its
licensing application.

Uber Technologies sued Columbus on August 29, 2014, in Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas.

Uber is an Internet ride-sharing service that operates in more
than 200 cities around the world.

Cab drivers have filed at least six class actions against it this
year -- in Houston, Boston, Baltimore, Seattle, Hartford and
Alexandria, Va. -- claiming Uber competes unfairly by letting
drivers charge for rides without meeting cities' licensing
regulations.

Berlin, Germany, barred Uber in August for similar reasons, though
Uber said it intends to keep expanding in Germany.  Uber appealed
Berlin's ban.  Uber has been sued repeatedly around the United
States on other allegations this year, including labor violations,
disability discrimination and unethical driver behavior.

In its own lawsuit, Uber wants the City of Columbus barred from
responding to an open records request from a local ABC TV station,
which asked the city for "unredacted versions of one of the
insurance policies that plaintiff Uber submitted as part of its
application for a license under peer-to-peer ridesharing
regulations newly enacted by Columbus."

"Releasing this insurance policy without the narrow, targeted
redactions that Uber seeks would publicly disclose Uber's trade
secret information and cause Uber significant, irreparable
competitive harm," the company claims.

It claims that Ohio public records law exempts trade secrets from
public disclosure.

Television station ABC6 asked to see Uber's application on
Aug. 22.

Uber claims that "one of the policy schedules provides a list of
various state-specific forms that Uber has incorporated into its
policy.  The schedule reflects significant work that Uber has
undertaken to design and implement a nationwide insurance program
for its peer-to-peer ridesharing program, and it represents
intellectual property that belongs to Uber.  Disclosing this
schedule would allow others to piggy-back off the work that Uber
has done.

"Disclosing this information would also provide a roadmap to other
geographic locations where Uber is contemplating rolling out ride-
sharing services."

Columbus plans to release the information on Tuesday, Sept. 2,
unless the court intervenes, Uber says.  It seeks an injunction
prohibiting the release of its confidential business documents --
specifically, of pp. 32-34 of its application.

Uber is represented:

          Douglas R. Cole, Esq.
          ORGAN COLE + STOCK LLP
          1335 Dublin Road, Suite 104D
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 481-0900
          Facsimile: (614) 481-0904
          E-mail: drcole@ocslawfirm.com


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over Consumer Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Valenzuela, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Universal Health Services, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No.
3:14-cv-03917 (N.D. Cal., August 28, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
specifically by failure to disclose that a consumer report will be
obtained and failure to seek written authorization from
prospective job applicants to obtain the consumer report.

Universal Health Services, Inc. owns and operates approximately
225 medical facilities throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq.
      DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
      1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 487-0777
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
      E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

         - and -

      Walter Lewis Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, P.C.
      5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562) 256-1047
      Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
      E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com


US POSTAL SERVICE: Sued for Requiring Class to Work Off-the-Clock
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Romulo Estrada, Arellano Aspiras, Jr., Romelia Mejia, and Maricor
Teano v. United States Postal Service, Yoginder Singal and Does 1-
20, Case No. 5:14-cv-03937 (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants require the Plaintiffs to work "off-the-
clock," refuse to allow the Plaintiffs to take meal and rest
breaks, and refuse to keep accurate time records.

USPS is a Federal Agency, with offices throughout the state of
California, including the City of Mountain View, County of Santa
Clara.  At all relevant times, Yoginder Singal was the Postmaster
of the Mountain View, California office of USPS.  The Plaintiffs
do not know the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa M. Chapman, Esq.
          Harpreet S. Walia, Esq.
          ROYSE LAW FIRM, PC
          1717 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 813-9700
          Facsimile: (650) 813-9777
          E-mail: lchapman@rroyselaw.com


WALLACE & GALE: Bid for Apportionment of Asbestos Damages Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports
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.

Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Dr. 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.

Judge 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," Judge Greene wrote.

However, the court concluded that Mr. Hewitt's injury is not
reasonably divisible.

"While there are many variables that go into the causal effects of
tobacco and asbestos exposure," Judge Greene wrote, "there is
evidence that the effect is multiplicative in nature, which we are
satisfied is indicative of an indivisible injury."

Judge 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.

Ms. 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," Ms. 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, Ms. Raker argued that the majority improperly relied
solely on the plaintiffs' experts at trial to support its
conclusion against apportionment when it excluded Dr. Kerby's
testimony.

As a result, Ms. Raker suggests remanding the case so a hearing
could be held to determine if Dr. 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," Ms. 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.

Judge 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.

Judge 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," Judge Greene concluded.


WARD MANUFACTURING: Removed "Pelino" Suit to District of Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Pelino, et al. v. Ward
Manufacturing, LLC, Case No. 07-C-14-001052, was removed from the
Circuit Court for Cecil County to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Baltimore).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02771-RDB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 605
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven Andrew Luxton, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 739-5452
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: sluxton@morganlewis.com


WASHINGTON: Says Yakima Nation Must Give to Tobacco Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insisting that the Yakima Nation must contribute to a master
settlement with tobacco manufacturers, an attorney for Washington
said the tribe's treaty does not give it carte blanche on tobacco
sales, reports June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Otherwise tribal members could go to the state fair and hand out
free cigarette samples to minors "because they have this treaty,"
David Hankins with the Washington Attorney General's office told a
three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit.

"Where does it end," he asked.

The August 27, 2014 hearing stems from a Master Settlement
Agreement (MSA) that Washington and 45 other states entered the
with big tobacco companies in 1998 to settle smoking-related
illness claims.  Any tobacco manufacturer that sells products in
an MSA state and was not a party to the settlement is required
under the deal to pay into an escrow account.  It is possible for
manufacturers to recover the money if no product-liability claims
occurred after 25 years.

The Yakima Nation's King Mountain Tobacco Co. started operating in
2006 and in 2010 requested a ruling from the tribal council as to
whether the company was subject to paying the escrow funds.  The
council deemed King Mountain exempt under the Yakima Treaty of
1855, which prohibits the state from collecting tobacco-related
fees.

When Washington's attorney general declined to give the company a
release, the Yakama and King Mountain filed suit in 2011.

U.S. District Judge Lonny Suko sided with the state, however,
finding that "a number of cases" support having tribes pay into
the MSA or escrow.

"King Mountain has not met its burden of showing express federal
law exempting its business from state regulation nor does it offer
case authority invalidating application of any state's escrow
statute based on an Indian Treaty or any other federal law," Suko
wrote.

At an August 27 hearing, the tribe's attorney Randolph Barnhouse
called this a misinterpretation of the 1855 treaty.  In siding
with the state, the court found the treaty is not express federal
law despite "over a hundred years of precedent," Barnhouse said.

"Washington regulatory authority is limited by the Yakima Treaty,"
he added.

Judge Susan Graber asked Barnhouse what specifically in the treaty
related to the tobacco settlement statute.

Barnhouse said the tribe can't take their products to market and
trade as provided for in the treaty.

"Who says they can't take them to market to trade?" Graber asked.

"The state of Washington says unless you comply with our
regulations," the attorney replied.

Judge Judge Morgan Christen countered that "this doesn't seem to
prevent them from bringing goods to market."

Barnhouse argued that the tribe cannot bring their goods -- in
this case, cigarettes -- to sell in Seattle because the Yakima are
not listed in the state directory of approved tobacco
manufacturers.

Graber said she had difficulty seeing the treaty "had anything to
do" with the tobacco regulations.  She said the whole scenario
"was never imagined" in 1855.

"They weren't manufacturing cigarettes then."

Hankins, arguing for the state, told the panel: "Nothing in the
treaty suggests that cigarettes can be sold coast to coast free
from any regulation."

While Washington cannot impose a tax or fee on the reservation,
"anytime a tribal member goes beyond the reservation boundaries
they are subject to all state non-discriminatory laws," Hankins
said.

"At a minimum" the Yakima read treaty rights guaranteeing
transportation of goods to market too broadly, Hankins continued.
"What you can't do is be free from any regulation or restriction,"
he said.

The Yakima Nation and King Mountain are represented by:

          Theresa L. Keyes, Esq.
          J. Michael Keyes, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          618 West Riverside Avenue, #300
          Spokane, WA 99201-0602
          Telephone: (509) 624-2100
          Facsimile: (509) 456-0146
          E-mail: Theresa.keyes@klgates.com
                  mike.keyes@klgates.com

               - and -

          Adam Moore, Esq.
          ADAM MOORE LAW FIRM
          217 N. Second St.
          Yakima, WA 98901
          Telephone: (509) 575-0372
          Facsimile: (509) 452-6771
          E-mail: mooreadamlawfirm@qwestoffice.net

               - and -

          Irwin H. Schwartz, Esq.
          710 Cherry Street
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 623-5084
          Facsimile: (206) 623-5951
          E-mail: Irwin@ihschwartz.com

The 2011 case is King Mountain Tobacco Company, Inc.; Confederated
Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Robert McKenna, Attorney
General of the State of Washington, Case No. CV-11-3018-LRS, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.


WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Affirms Lawsuit Dismissal with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of: ERIC NJAU MWANGI; PAULINE MUTHONI MWICHARO,
Debtors, ERIC NJAU MWANGI; PAULINE MUTHONI MWICHARO, Appellants,
v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee, NO. 12-16087, Eric Mwangi and
Pauline Mwicharo (the Debtors), appeal from a bankruptcy court's
decision to the district court.

The Debtors are both account holders at Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
When Wells Fargo discovered that the Debtors had filed a voluntary
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, it placed a "temporary
administrative pledge" on the Debtors' accounts. Wells Fargo then
requested instructions from the Chapter 7 trustee regarding the
distribution of account funds, a portion of which the Debtors
claimed as exempt under Nevada Revised Statutes Section
21.090(1)(g).

The Debtors filed an adversary class action against Wells Fargo,
alleging violations of Section 362(a)(3)'s automatic stay
provision. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, and the bankruptcy court eventually dismissed the adversary
class action with prejudice. The bankruptcy court concluded that
the Debtors lacked standing to pursue any alleged violations of
Section 362(a)(3)'s automatic stay provision with respect to the
account funds because the trustee alone has standing to protect
estate property. In addition, the bankruptcy court concluded that
the Debtors could not allege any injury to their inchoate interest
in the account funds because they had no right to possess estate
property.  The Debtors appealed.

In an opinion dated August 26, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/QZI74Cfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order
affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment of dismissal with
prejudice.

Christopher P. Burke (argued), Las Vegas, Nevada, for Plaintiffs-
Appellants.

M. David Minnick (argued)-- dminnick@pillsburylaw.com -- Kevin M.
Fong -- kevin.fong@pillsburylaw.com  -- and Daniel Lamb --
Daniel.lamb@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP, San Francisco, California; Lance Earl --
learl@hollandhart.com -- and Lars K. Evensen --
lkevensen@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP, Las Vegas,
Nevada, for Defendant-Appellee.


WYOMING: 10th Cir. Partly Affirms Ruling in "Lewis" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Anthony Lewis, a federal pre-trial detainee housed in a
Wyoming detention facility, filed a pro se civil rights action
against the facility's head administrator and several other
individuals alleging various constitutional violations on behalf
of himself and a class of inmates. After dismissing Mr. Lewis's
first complaint and granting leave to amend, the district court
concluded Mr. Lewis's second complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted because he could not represent a
class of inmates pro se and his individual claims did not
plausibly allege any constitutional violations.

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, the United
States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed in part and
reversed in part the district court ruling.  The Tenth Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of Mr. Lewis's ex parte
motion to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23. As to Mr. Lewis's individual claims, the Tenth Circuit
affirmed the district court's dismissal of his equal protection,
access to courts, and supervisory liability claims as to
Lieutenant Clark and the NCAO attorneys.  The district court's
dismissal of his retaliation claim as to the "Unknown Named
Deputy" working in the control tower on August 7, 2013 was
reversed.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part
the district court's dismissal of his inmate-to-inmate
correspondence claims as to Lieutenant Clark and the "45 Unknown
Named Deputies" working in the mail room.  Mr. Lewis's remaining
claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments regarding his
access to the law library and NCDC's 10-page limit on incoming
mailed printed materials is remanded.

A copy of the Tenth Circuit's August 26, 2014 order and judgment
is available at http://is.gd/W28Szifrom Leagle.com.

The case is RAYMOND ANTHONY LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JERRY
CLARK, Natrona County Sheriff's Department Deputy, in his
individual and official capacities; UNKNOWN NAMED DEPUTY, Working
Control Tower Two, Natrona County Detention Center, on August 7,
2013, at 10:00 p.m., in his individual and official capacities;
FORTY-FIVE (45) UNKNOWN NAMED DEPUTIES, Working at Natrona County
Detention Center from July 2013 to August 2013, in their
individual and official capacities; FIFTEEN (15) UNKNOWN NAMED
LAWYERS, at Natrona County Attorney's Office, in their individual
and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-8013.


YELP! INC: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Case Alleging Extortion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
California business owners failed to show that Yelp attempted to
extort advertising money from them by manipulating online reviews,
reports Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service, citing a 9th Circuit
ruling.

Boris Levitt, Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital Inc., John Mercurio
and Dr. Tracy Chan alleged in a class action that the popular
online review site fiddled with user-generated reviews and even
wrote its own negative third-party reviews to convince them to buy
advertising for their business.

The business owners charged Yelp with civil extortion, attempted
civil extortion, and violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law in San Francisco federal court.

Levitt, owner of Renaissance Restoration, claimed, among other
things, that two days after he refused to purchase advertising
from Yelp, several five-star reviews disappeared from his
business' page on the site.  He argued that Yelp removed the
positive reviews as a "threat to induce him to purchase
advertising," according to the ruling.

Santa Barbara-based Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital said that it
started to get "high-pressure" sales calls from Yelp shortly after
it had received two negative reviews on the site.  The company
claims that Yelp offered to "hide" the negative reviews if the
hospital purchased advertising.  Yelp allegedly re-posted the
negative reviews to "instill fear" and induce Cats and Dogs to
advertise when it declined.

Mercurio, the owner of an auto-body shop called Wheel Techniques,
said that Yelp posted "false reviews" to get him to advertise, and
Chan, a dentist, claimed that "Yelp removed nine 5-star reviews"
from her page after she refused to advertise, the ruling states.
After Chan gave in and signed an advertising contract with Yelp,
her overall rating increased to four stars and several five-stars
reviews were re-posted, she said.

Yelp denied the allegations, and U.S. District Judge Edward Chen
dismissed the case in San Francisco for failure to state a proper
claim.

A unanimous appellate panel affirmed on September 2, 2014.

Yelp's alleged conduct cannot be called extortion because its
"manipulation of user reviews, assuming it occurred, was not
wrongful use of economic fear, and, second, . . . business owners
pled insufficient facts to make out a plausible claim that Yelp
authored negative reviews of their businesses," the three-judge
panel found.

"In sum, to state a claim of economic extortion under both federal
and California law, a litigant must demonstrate either that he had
a pre-existing right to be free from the threatened harm, or that
the defendant had no right to seek payment for the service
offered," wrote Judge Marsha Berzon for the three-judge appellate
panel.  "Any less stringent standard would transform a wide
variety of legally acceptable business dealings into extortion."

"Given these stringent requirements, the business owners in this
case failed sufficiently to allege that Yelp wrongfully threatened
economic loss by manipulating user reviews," Berzon added.

Vince Sollitto, Yelp's VP of corporate communications and
government affairs, said September 2 that the company is pleased
with the ruling.

"We have always said the claims were without merit and we are
pleased the courts continue to agree," he said.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Lawrence Dale Murray, Esq.
          John Henning III, Esq.
          Robert C. Strickland, Esq.
          MURRAY & ASSOCIATES
          1781 Union St.
          San Francisco, CA 94123-4426
          Telephone: (415) 673-0555
          Facsimile: (415) 928-4084
          E-mail: unionstlaw@aol.com
                  henninglawfirm@hotmail.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq.
          Molly Cutler, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
          Telephone: (650) 849-5300
          Facsimile: (650) 849-5333

               - and -

          Gail Ellen Lees, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: glees@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Aaron Schur, Esq.
          YELP INC.
          140 New Montgomery St., 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105

The case is Boris Y. Levitt, et al. v. Yelp! Inc., Case No. 11-
17676, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


* HK Can't Change Voting Rules on Lack of Class-Action System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kana Nishizawa and Richard Frost, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Hong Kong's stock exchange is seeking views on
loosening shareholder voting rules that spurred Alibaba Group
Holding Ltd. to choose the U.S. for what may be the world's
biggest initial public offering this year.

The bourse issued a "concept paper" on Aug. 28 about the
possibility of allowing minority-control voting structures.
Respondents have three months to answer questions including
whether to allow dual-class shares or restrict them to certain
industries, David Graham, head of listings at Hong Kong Exchanges
& Clearing Ltd., said at a press conference on Aug. 28.  The
bourse has "no view" on weighted voting rights, he said.

The city's regulators rejected the governance structure of Alibaba
this year, prompting the Chinese e-commerce company to turn to the
U.S. for an IPO that may raise about $20 billion.  Hong Kong
should accommodate new shareholding and management structures to
allow companies in different legal forms to conduct IPOs, a
government advisory panel said in June.

            The ECB's Options to Aid the Economy

"Hong Kong as a financial center needs to be competitive,"
Mr. Graham said.  "This is not about HKEx, this is about Hong Kong
as a financial center.  This is a development which may be
potentially encouraging companies to list elsewhere."

If there is support for changing the rules, the bourse will
consult with the public on ways to proceed, Mr. Graham said.  Hong
Kong's Securities and Futures Commission didn't immediately
respond to request for comment on Aug. 28.

Alibaba, whose IPO may edge past Visa Inc.'s $19.65 billion
offering as the largest in U.S. history, is governed by a
partnership that has the exclusive right to nominate a majority of
its board of directors, according to its U.S. regulatory filings.
The system enables Alibaba founder Jack Ma and his management team
to keep control.

                         Advisory Board

The city should reconsider the "one share, one vote" concept and
open up its IPO market to "quality companies from all corners of
the world," Hong Kong's Financial Services Development Council
said in a report on June 18.

The Aug. 28 paper set out the different rules on voting-class
shares in countries including the U.S., the U.K., Japan and
Singapore, as well as current regulations that provide investor
protection in the former British colony.

Hong Kong has maintained a "one share, one vote" policy since
1987, when companies including Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd. and
Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (1) proposed issuing B shares in
exchange for one or more of their ordinary equities that would
have allowed controlling shareholders to increase voting power,
according to David Webb, a former exchange director who founded
local governance watchdog Webb-site.com.

                      'Rational Debate'

Hong Kong's absence of a class-action legal system has made the
city's regulators reluctant to change the status quo because less
redress is available to small shareholders.  In the U.S.,
companies with more than one type of share, including Google Inc.
(GOOG) and Facebook Inc., are subject to more stringent reporting
requirements and a class-action litigation system.

Losing what may be the biggest Internet offering in Chinese
history shows Hong Kong needs to talk about its future
competitiveness, Charles Li, the chief executive officer of Hong
Kong Exchanges, wrote on his blog in April.

"Our market still has room to improve and our efforts should not
stop simply because one company has left for another market,"
Mr. Li wrote.  "It's time for us to let our emotions subside and
have a rational debate."


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS ALERT: AVC Unit Named Defendant in "Spence" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of American Vanguard Corporation has been named as
one of the defendants in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Mark
Spence, 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: "AMVAC Chemical Corporation has been named as
one of 46 defendants in an action entitled Mark Spence v. A.W.
Chesterton Company, et al., which was filed on June 16, 2014 with
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois as case number
2014L006394 in which plaintiff alleges to have developed
mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos-containing products while
working as a construction and lawn care laborer in Illinois over
the period 1968 to 1990. Among a laundry list of pipe covers,
gaskets, roof shingles and construction materials, plaintiff
alleges that he was also exposed to unnamed products of AMVAC
including "asbestos contaminated fertilizers, herbicides and other
horticultural products." The company is unaware of having ever
sold any product or packaging that incorporated asbestos and
believes that this claim has no merit. We plan to defend the
matter vigorously. The company believes that a loss is neither
probable nor reasonably estimable and has not established a loss
contingency for the matter.

American Vanguard Corporation operates as a holding company. The
Company is primarily a chemical manufacturer that develops and
markets products for agricultural and commercial uses. The Company
manufactures and formulates chemicals for crops, human and animal
protection. The Company conducts its business through its
subsidiaries, AMVAC Chemical Corporation (AMVAC), GemChem, Inc.
(GemChem), 2110 Davie Corporation (DAVIE), Quimica Amvac de Mexico
S.A. de C.V. (AMVAC M), AMVAC de Costa Rica Sociedad Anonima
(AMVAC CR), AMVAC Switzerland GmbH (AMVAC S), AMVAC do Brasil
Representacoes Ltda (AMVAC B), AMVAC Chemical UK Ltd. (AMVAC UK),
AMVAC CV (AMVAC CV), AMVAC Netherlands BV (AMVAC BV), and Envance
Technologies, LLC (Envance). AMVAC is a chemical manufacturer that
develops and markets products for agricultural and commercial
uses. It manufactures and formulates chemicals for crops, human
and animal health protection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Judge Tosses Bid to Block Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports 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.

Judge 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: Crane Co. To Seek Review on "Suttner" Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. intends to seek review before the New York Court of
Appeals on a judgment of the claim filed by Gerald Suttner,
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 October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company
sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company
intends to seek review before the New York Court of Appeals.

Crane Co. 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. Appeal in "Hellam" Suit Is Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal in the lawsuit filed by James Hellam remains
pending, 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 November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding
allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in
the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be
applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.
On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing
partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an
appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The
court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1
million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014,
the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against the
Company, and the California Supreme Court denied review of this
ruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating to
recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeals in Pa. Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeals in two lawsuits in Pennsylvania remain
pending, 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 February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed.

Crane Co. 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. Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Is Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal in the lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica remains
pending, 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 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest).

The Company has appealed. The Company has taken a separate appeal
of the trial court's denial of its summary judgment motion. The
Court has consolidated the appeals, which are scheduled to be
heard in third quarter of 2014.

Crane Co. 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: "Holdsworth" Suit v. Crane Co. Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by Lee Holdsworth against Crane Co. remains
pending, 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 July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn
the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which
the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case
law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were
subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and
the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages.
Plaintiffs have requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million.
The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary.

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: Allstate Corp. Had $976MM Fibro Claims Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were
$976 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.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $976 million and
$1.02 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $462 million and
$478 million, as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $201 million
and $208 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $60 million
and $60 million, as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. Approximately 53% and 55% of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of June 30, 2014 and December 31,
2013, respectively, were for incurred but not reported estimated
losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the
uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not
practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional
net loss reserves that may be required.

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged, principally
in the United States, in the property-liability insurance, life
insurance, retirement and investment product business. Allstate's
primary business is the sale of private passenger auto and
homeowners insurance. The Company also sells several other
personal property and casualty insurance products, select
commercial property and casualty coverages, life insurance,
annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and funding
agreements. Allstate primarily distributes its products through
exclusive agencies, financial specialists, independent agencies,
call centers and the Internet. In April 2014, Allstate completed
sale of Lincoln Benefit Life company to Resolution Life Holdings
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $8.9MM Est. Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's estimated asbestos-related
aggregate liability is $8,929,000, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $7,000,000 and $12,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 18 to 30 years from
June 30, 2014. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles approximates
$8,929,000, which has been reflected as a liability in the
consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2014. The
recorded liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based
on the uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be
filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may be
influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
settlement payments and legal defense costs of approximately
$2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of these costs
is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the
potential additional costs for claims will not have a material
effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity,
although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be
material to earnings in a future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and
attachments, and actuators in North America. In March 2014,
Columbus McKinnon Corp acquired privately-owned Unified
Industries, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM Int'l. Inks Deal to Resolve Bondex Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. has entered into a settlement to resolve
asbestos-related claims filed in the Chapter 11 cases of Bondex
International Inc. and Specialty Products Holding Corp., according
to the Company's Form 8-K dated July 28, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2014.

As previously disclosed, on May 31, 2010, Bondex International,
Inc., and its parent company, Specialty Products Holding Corp.,
filed voluntary petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code in an effort to permanently and
comprehensively resolve all present and future asbestos personal
injury claims related to Bondex and SPHC.

On July 26, 2014, RPM International Inc., Bondex, SPHC and other
related entities entered into settlement term sheets with the
official representatives of current and future asbestos claimants
setting forth the parties' agreement in principle to resolve all
present and future asbestos personal injury claims related to
Bondex, SPHC and the other related entities. The agreement in
principle contemplates the filing of a plan or plans of
reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court. The Plan will be subject
to approval of the claimants, as well as the Bankruptcy Court and
U.S. District Court.

The agreement in principle requires the creation and funding of a
trust or trusts established under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code for the benefit of current and future asbestos personal
injury claimants. Upon effectiveness of the Plan (the "Effective
Date"), the Trust will be funded with $450 million in cash and one
or more promissory notes, bearing no interest and maturing on or
before the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date, that shall
provide for the following contributions to the Trust:

   (a) on or before the second anniversary of the Effective Date,
an additional $102.5 million in cash, common stock of the Company,
or a combination thereof;

   (b) on or before the third anniversary of the Effective Date,
an additional $120 million in cash, common stock of the Company,
or a combination thereof; and

   (c) on or before the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date,
a final payment of $125 million in cash, common stock of the
Company, or a combination thereof.

In addition to Bondex and SPHC, the settlement resolves all
present and future asbestos personal injury claims related to
Republic Powdered Metals, Inc. ("Republic") and NMBFil, Inc.
("NMBFil"), both of which are indirect subsidiaries of the
Company. Of the trust funding, $2.5 million relates to the
resolution of NMBFil asbestos personal injury claims, which is the
subject of a separate settlement term sheet. The promissory
note(s) will be secured by the equity of SPHC, Bondex, Republic
and NMBFil. All present and future asbestos personal injury claims
related to each of these entities will be channeled to and paid by
the Trust.

The Company expects that the Bankruptcy Court will schedule future
proceedings regarding this matter.

RPM International Inc. (RPM) through its subsidiaries
manufactures, markets and sells various specialty chemical product
lines. RPM's business is divided into two reportable segments: the
industrial reportable segment (industrial segment) and the
consumer reportable segment (consumer segment). The industrial
segment (RPM Building Solutions Group, Performance Coatings Group
and RPM2 Group), which comprises approximately 65% of its total
net sales, includes maintenance and protection products for
roofing and waterproofing systems, flooring, corrosion control and
other specialty applications. The consumer segment (Rust-Oleum
Group and DAP Group) comprises approximately 35% of its total net
sales and includes rust-preventative, special purpose and
decorative paints, caulks, sealants, primers and other branded
consumer products. In July 2014, the Company announced that its
Rust-Oleum Group has acquired Krud Kutter Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $104MM PI Claims Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary had reserved approximately $104
million in total for asbestos-related bodily injury 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.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in
certain facilities that are currently owned by Exelon Generation
Company LLC or were previously owned by Commonwealth Edison
Company and PECO Energy Company.  The reserve is recorded on an
undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs
associated with handling these matters, which could be material.

At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, Generation had reserved
approximately $104 million and $90 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of June 30, 2014,
approximately $21 million of this amount related to 247 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $83 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary. During the second quarter of 2014, Generation increased
its reserve by approximately $15 million, primarily due to
increased actual and projected number and severity of claims.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to
predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional
claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no
increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been
recorded as of June 30, 2014. Increased claims activity resulting
from this ruling could have a material adverse effect on Exelon's,
Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and cash
flows.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation)
subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning
asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises
liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.
Approximately 486 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which
have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any
payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include: (i)
the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly
worked as contractors; (ii) the names of the plaintiffs'
employers; (iii) the dates on which and the places where the
exposure allegedly occurred; and (iv) the facts and circumstances
relating to the alleged exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO)
subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia
and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000 megawatts
of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy products and
services to approximately 100,000 business and public sector
customers and approximately 1 million residential customers.
Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to more
than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern Illinois
and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Global Power Equipment Group Inc. continues to defend itself
against asbestos personal injury lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014.

The Company states: "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits. Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against us before that time. We also believe
the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar
against any later claim filed against us, including any of our
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful
in having such cases dismissed without liability. Moreover, during
2012, we secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse
the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of our
former operating unit relating to these claims. We intend to
vigorously defend all currently active actions, just as we
defended the other actions that have since been dismissed, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a provider of power
generation equipment and maintenance services for customers in the
domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and
service industries. The Company, along with its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers and manufactures heat recovery and auxiliary
power equipment primarily used in the operation of gas turbine
power plants, as well as for other industrial and power-related
applications. The Company operates in two segments. Its Products
Division designs, engineers and manufactures products worldwide
for the gas turbine power generation, energy and process
industries. Its Services Division provides industrial services,
focusing on specialty services, outage management and overhaul of
nuclear power facilities and other heavy industrial plants. In May
2013, the Company acquired Hetsco, Inc. In July 2013, Global Power
Equipment Group Inc. announced that it has acquired privately-
owned IBI, LLC (IBI Power).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Had 51,000 Pending PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 51,000 pending active asbestos-related
claims against ITT 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: "ITT, including its subsidiary Goulds Pumps,
Inc., has been joined as a defendant with numerous other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by us or our former subsidiaries prior to 1985
contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket)
which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts
may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or
other) material and was non-friable.

"As of June 30, 2014, there were approximately 51 thousand pending
active claims against ITT, including Goulds Pumps, filed in
various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT or Goulds
Pumps product as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to
date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without
any payment from the Company. Management believes that a large
majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In
addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups,
the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly
from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits
will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively
defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount. After filing of the complaint, the
plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to
establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including
the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs
seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek
to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many
defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is
unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending
claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.

"Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any
predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate
of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light
of the uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is
probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos
claims filed beyond the next 10 years, we do not believe there is
a reasonable basis for estimating those costs at this time.

"The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect
management's best estimate of future events. However, future
events affecting the key factors and other variables for either
the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause
actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than
currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our
inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability
for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is not
possible to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and
unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future
events affecting the key factors and other variables within the
next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond
the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on our financial statements."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Corp. Estimates $774.3MM Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Corporation's estimated asbestos exposure for the resolution
of all pending claims and claims estimated to be filed in the next
10 years was $774.3 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "In the third quarter of each year, we conduct
our annual asbestos measurement with the assistance of outside
consultants to review and update the underlying assumptions used
in our asbestos liability and related asset estimates. In each
remeasurement, the underlying assumptions are updated based on our
actual experience since our previous annual remeasurement and we
reassess the appropriate reference period used in determining each
assumption and our expectations regarding future conditions,
including inflation. As part of our ongoing review of our net
asbestos exposure, each quarter we assess the most recent
qualitative and quantitative data available for the key inputs and
assumptions, comparing the data to the expectations on which the
most recent annual liability and asset estimates were based. Based
on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the
estimate was warranted for the period ended June 30, 2014 other
than the incremental accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year
forecast period. The net asbestos charge for the three months
ended June 30, 2014, and 2013 was $15.9 million and $15.9 million,
respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013
was $31.7 million and $31.9 million, respectively.

"The Company's estimated asbestos exposure, net of expected
recoveries, for the resolution of all pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed in the next 10 years was $774.3 million and
$746.9 million as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively."

ITT Corporation (ITT) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
critical components and customized technology solutions for
industrial markets. The Company manufactures components that are
integral to the operation of systems and manufacturing processes
in the energy, transportation and industrial markets. Its products
provide enabling functionality for applications where reliability
and performance are critically important to its customers and the
users of their products. Its product and service offerings are
organized in four segments: Industrial Process, Motion
Technologies, Interconnect Solutions (ICS), and Control
Technologies. In November 2012, the Company sold its shape cutting
product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn brands, to Lincoln
Electric Holdings, Inc. In November 2012, the Company sold its
shape cutting product lines, including the Burny and Kaliburn
brands, to Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. in 2012, the Company
acquired Bornemann.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Fibro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 9,700 cases alleging injuries from
asbestos related to Corning Incorporated's Corhart business,
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.

Corning is the defendant in approximately 9,700 cases
(approximately 37,400 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos
related to its Corhart business and similar amounts of monetary
damages per case. When Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC")
filed for bankruptcy protection, the Bankruptcy Court granted a
preliminary injunction to suspend all asbestos cases against PCC,
PPG Industries Inc. and Corning -- including these non-PCC
asbestos cases.  The stay remains in place as of the date of this
filing. Under the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Amended
PCC Plan, the stay will remain in place until the Amended PCC Plan
is finally affirmed. These non-PCC asbestos cases have been
covered by insurance without material impact to Corning to date.
As of June 30, 2014, Corning had received for these cases
approximately $19 million in insurance payments related to those
claims. If and when the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the
Amended PCC Plan is affirmed, these non-PCC asbestos claims would
be allowed to proceed against Corning. Corning has recorded in its
estimated asbestos litigation liability an additional $150 million
for these and any future non-PCC asbestos cases.

Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced
Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning
Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc
announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $695-Mil. Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated's liability for the plan of reorganization
filed in the Chapter 11 case of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and
other asbestos litigation was estimated to be $695 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 liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the other asbestos
litigation was estimated to be $695 million at June 30, 2014,
compared with an estimate of liability of $690 million at December
31, 2013. This $695 million liability is comprised of $255 million
of the fair value of PCE, $290 million for the fixed series of
payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC asbestos litigation,
all referenced in the preceding paragraphs. With respect to the
PCE liability, at June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the fair
value of $255 million of our interest in PCE significantly
exceeded its carrying value of $171 million and $167 million,
respectively. There have been no impairment indicators for our
investment in PCE and we continue to recognize equity earnings of
this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded this liability, it
determined it lacked the ability to recover the carrying amount of
its investment in PCC and its investment was other than
temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our investment in
PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is significantly higher than
book value, management believes that the risk of an additional
loss in an amount materially higher than the fair value of the
liability is remote. With respect to the liability for other
asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC claims was
estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims since
Corning does not have recent claim history due to the injunction
issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability represents
the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over
the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in future
periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot
estimate any additional losses at this time. The entire obligation
is classified as a non-current liability as installment payments
for the cash portion of the obligation under the Amended PCC Plan
are not scheduled to commence until more than 12 months after the
Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will
be fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's
investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other
equity method investment).

Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced
Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning
Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc
announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Insurance Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated continues to defend asbestos-related coverage
lawsuits filed by insurers, 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.

Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies affecting the non-Pittsburgh
Corning Corporation asbestos cases, including rights that may be
affected by potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously
contesting these cases, and management is unable to predict the
outcome of the litigation.

Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced
Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning
Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc
announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Won't Review Ruling in Coverage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1999, Air & Liquid Systems Corporation and its predecessors
have faced thousands of lawsuits in 40 different states stemming
from injuries allegedly caused by asbestos, from the manufacture
of industrial pumps by the Buffalo Pumps Division.  Some of those
claims are based on injuries allegedly resulting from the
plaintiffs' exposure to heat exchange coils and air handlers.
Because of the personal-injury actions, Ampco-Pittsburgh
Corporation and its affiliates have incurred indemnity and defense
costs amounting to millions of dollars.

On February 24, 2011, the Ampco-Pittsburgh Companies commenced an
action against Howden North America, Inc., and numerous domestic
and foreign insurers who had issued excess liability policies
covering the period of time beginning on January 1, 1981, and
ending on January 1, 1985, seeking declaratory relief defining
their right to indemnification and defense costs from each
defendant.  HNA filed counterclaims against the Ampco-Pittsburgh
Companies, cross-claims against the insurer-defendants, and
additional claims against 13 other insurance companies.

The insured entities -- the Ampco-Pittsburgh Companies -- sought
relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, which permits a
court to "declare the rights and other legal relations of any
interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further
relief is or could be sought."  In an order dated September 27,
2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania issued several declarations clarifying the respective
rights and obligations of the insured entities and the excess
liability insurers.  Two insurers filed motions for
reconsideration and certain insurers filed a motion for leave to
file additional briefing.

In a memorandum opinion dated Aug. 15, 2014, Chief Judge Joy
Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, denied the motions, saying, among other
things, that allowing the motions for reconsideration would open
the prospect of multiple appeals in the case, which would force
the court of appeals to consider the same issues multiple times.

The case is AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION and AMPCO-PITTSBURGH
CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-247 (W.D. Pa.).
A full-text copy of Judge Conti's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/79uAWBfrom Leagle.com.

STACEY F. VERNALLIS, Special Master, represented by Stacey F.
Vernallis, Esq. -- svernallis@grblaw.com -- at Goehring, Rutter &
Boehm.

ACE INSURANCE S.A. N.V., Cross Defendant, represented by Alan S.
Miller, Esq. -- amiller@psmn.com -- at Picadio, Sneath, Miller &
Norton; Sally A. Clements, Esq. -- sclements@coughlinduffy.com --
Suzanne C. Midlige, Esq. -- smidlige@coughlinduffy.com -- Adam M.
Smith, Esq. -- asmith@coughlinduffy.com -- Eduardo DeMarco, Esq.
-- EDemarco@coughlinduffy.com -- and Michael E. Hrinewski, Esq. --
mhrinewski@coughlinduffy.com -- at Coughlin Duffy LLP.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant,
Counter Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by David F.
McGonigle, Esq., David R. Osipovich, Esq., J. Nicholas Ranjan,
Esq., and Thomas E. Birsic, Esq., at K&L Gates LLP.

ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Counter Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented
by Susan S. Brown, Esq., at Koch & DeMarco.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to Northbrook
Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant,
represented by Louis C. Long, Esq. -- llong@tthlaw.com -- at
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP; Eric J. Konecke, Esq. --
ekonecke@windelsmarx.com -- and Stefano V. Calogero, Esq., at
Windels Marx Lande & Mittendorf, LLP.

AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by David F.
McGonigle, Esq., David R. Osipovich, Esq., J. Nicholas Ranjan,
Esq., and Thomas E. Birsic, Esq., at K&L Gates LLP.

ASSICURAZIONI GENERALI S.P.A., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Michael A. Shiner, Esq. --
mshiner@tuckerlaw.com -- Danielle L. Dietrich, Esq. --
ddietrich@tuckerlaw.com -- at Tucker Arensberg; and Thomas V.
Lomino, Esq. -- thomas.lomino@mendes.com -- Carolina A. Salazar,
Esq. -- carolina.salazar@medes.com -- Eileen McCabe, Esq. --
eileen.mccabe@mendes.com -- and John G. McAndrews, Esq. --
john.mcandreews@mendes.com -- at Mendes & Mount, LLP.

ASSOCIATED INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by William James Rogers, Esq. -- WJR@trc-law.com -- at Thomson,
Rhodes & Cowie; and Robert P. Siegel, Esq. --
rsiegel@traublieberman.com -- at Traub Lieberman Straus &
Shrewsberry LLP.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, Defendant, Cross
Defendant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Michael A.
Shiner, Tucker Arensberg, Danielle L. Dietrich, Tucker
Arensberg, Heather M. Langeland, Tucker Arensberg, Owen J.
McGrann, Babst Calland Clements & Zomnir, P.C., Thomas V. Lomino,
Mendes & Mount, LLP, Carolina A. Salazar, Mendes & Mount,
LLP, Eileen McCabe, Mendes & Mount, LLP & John G. McAndrews,
Mendes & Mount, LLP.

COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Patrick F. Hofer, Esq. -- Patrick.hofer@troutmansanders.com --
and Steven W. McNutt, Esq. -- steven.mcnutt@troutmansanders.com at
Troutman Sanders LLP; and Robert B. Stein, Esq. --
rstein@rudovstein.com -- at Rudov & Stein &

EQUITAS INSURANCE LIMITED, Cross Defendant and Counter Defendant,
represented by Michael A. Shiner, Tucker Arensberg,Danielle L.
Dietrich, Tucker Arensberg, Owen J. McGrann, Babst Calland
Clements & Zomnir, P.C. &Thomas V. Lomino, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

EXECUTIVE RISK INDEMNITY INC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Couunter Claimant, represented
by William P. Shelley, Gordon & Rees LLC.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by William P. Shelley, Gordon & Rees LLC.

FIRST STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Keith E. Whitson, Esq. -- kwhitson@schnader.com -- at Schnader,
Harrison, Segal & Lewis; and Joshua D. Weinberg, Esq. --
jweinberg@goodwin.com -- Chasity V. Roberts, Esq. --
croberts@goodwin.com -- and Mark K. Ostrowski, Esq. --
mostrowski@goodwin.com -- at Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, Movant, represented by Karen M.
Borg, Esq. -- kborg@butlerrubin.com -- at Butler Rubin Saltarelli
& Boyd.

HARPER VERSICHERUNGS AG, Defendant, Counter Defendant, and Cross
Defendant, represented by Michael A. Shiner, Tucker
Arensberg,Danielle L. Dietrich, Tucker Arensberg, Heather M.
Langeland, Tucker Arensberg, Thomas V. Lomino, Mendes & Mount,
LLP, Carolina A. Salazar, Mendes & Mount, LLP, Eileen McCabe,
Mendes & Mount, LLP & John G. McAndrews, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

HDI-GERLING INDUSTRIE VERSICHERUNG AG, Cross Defendant,
represented by Alan S. Miller, Esq., at Picadio, Sneath, Miller &
Norton; and Maida Perez, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Michael E. Hrinewski,
Coughlin Duffy LLP, Sally A. Clements, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Suzanne
C. Midlige, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Adam M. Smith, Coughlin Duffy
LLP, Eduardo DeMarco, Coughlin Duffy LLP.

HOWDEN NORTH AMERICAN, INC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Eli K. Best, Esq. -- ebest@cov.com -- Eric C. Bosset, Esq. --
ebosset@cov.com -- Nan Lou, Esq. -- nlou@cov.com -- Timothy D.
Greszler, Esq. -- tgreszler@cov.com -- and William F. Greaney,
wgreaney@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling LLP; and William David
Geiger, Esq. -- wgeiger@dmcpc.com -- at Davies, McFarland &
Carroll.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Carolina A. Salazar, Mendes & Mount, LLP, Danielle L. Dietrich,
Tucker Arensberg, John G. McAndrews, Mendes & Mount, LLP, Michael
A. Shiner, Tucker Arensberg, Owen J. McGrann, Babst Calland
Clements & Zomnir, P.C. & Thomas V. Lomino, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

MT. MCKINLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Dipali Parikh, Esq. -- dparikh@sseg-law.com -- Robert D.
Anderle, Esq. -- rdanderle@sseg-law.com -- Jessica Handlos, Esq.,
and Daniel F. Gourash, Esq. -- dfgourash@sseg-law.com -- at Seeley
Savidge Ebert & Gourash Co., LPA.

MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC, as successor in interest to
American Excess Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by William P. Shelley,
Gordon & Rees LLC.

NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Carolina A. Salazar, Mendes & Mount, LLP, John G.
McAndrews, Mendes & Mount, LLP, Michael A. Shiner, Tucker
Arensberg, Owen J. McGrann, Babst Calland Clements & Zomnir,
P.C., Thomas V. Lomino, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
and Counter Defendant, represented by Michelle R. Valencic, Esq.
-- mvalencic@clausen.com -- Amy R. Paulus, Esq. --
apaulus@clausen.com -- and Amber N. Oleson, Esq., at Clausen
Miller P.C.; and Paul K. Geer, Esq. -- pgeer@dgmblaw.com -- at
DiBella, Geer, McAllister & Best.

PORTMAN INSURANCE LIMITED, Cross Defendant, represented by Alan S.
Miller, Picadio, Sneath, Miller & Norton, Maida Perez, Coughlin
Duffy LLP, Michael E. Hrinewski, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Sally A.
Clements, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Suzanne C. Midlige, Coughlin Duffy
LLP, Adam M. Smith, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Eduardo DeMarco, Coughlin
Duffy LLP & Joseph R. Carnicella, Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton,
P.C..

QBE INSURANCE (EUROPE) LIMITED, Cross Defendant, represented
by Alan S. Miller, Picadio, Sneath, Miller & Norton, Maida Perez,
Coughlin Duffy LLP, Michael E. Hrinewski, Coughlin Duffy
LLP, Sally A. Clements, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Suzanne C. Midlige,
Coughlin Duffy LLP, Adam M. Smith, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Eduardo
DeMarco, Coughlin Duffy LLP & Joseph R. Carnicella, Picadio Sneath
Miller & Norton, P.C..

SOMPO JAPAN INSURANCE INC, formerly known as THE YASUDA FIRE &
MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by John G. McAndrews, Mendes &
Mount, LLP.

STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross Defendant and Counter
Defendant, represented by Michael A. Shiner, Tucker
Arensberg, Danielle L. Dietrich, Tucker Arensberg & Thomas V.
Lomino, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

SWISS RE EUROPE S.A., Cross Defendant, represented by Alan S.
Miller, Picadio, Sneath, Miller & Norton, Maida Perez, Coughlin
Duffy LLP, Sally A. Clements, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Suzanne C.
Midlige, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Adam M. Smith, Coughlin Duffy
LLP, Eduardo DeMarco, Coughlin Duffy LLP, Joseph R. Carnicella,
Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. & Michael E. Hrinewski,
Coughlin Duffy LLP.

TENECOM LIMITED, Cross Defendant and Counter Defendant,
represented by Thomas V. Lomino, Mendes & Mount, LLP, Eileen
McCabe, Mendes & Mount, LLP & John G. McAndrews, Mendes & Mount,
LLP.

THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Susan S. Brown,
Koch & DeMarco.

THE DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Defendant and Counter
Defendant, represented by Michael A. Shiner, Tucker
Arensberg, Danielle L. Dietrich, Tucker Arensberg, Heather M.
Langeland, Tucker Arensberg, Thomas V. Lomino, Mendes & Mount,
LLP, Carolina A. Salazar, Mendes & Mount, LLP, Eileen McCabe,
Mendes & Mount, LLP & John G. McAndrews, Mendes & Mount, LLP.

TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor by merger to International
Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Scott E. Levens, Siegal & Park
& Lawrence A. Nathanson, Siegal & Park.

TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, Counter Defendant, and Counter Claimant,
represented by Keith E. Whitson, Schnader, Harrison, Segal &
Lewis, Joshua D. Weinberg, Shipman & Goodwin, Chasity V. Roberts,
Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
Cross Claimant, and Counter Defendant, represented by Scott E.
Levens, Siegal & Park & Lawrence A. Nathanson, Siegal & Park.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling on AIU Late-Filed Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an action seeking damages for failure to pay claims under
reinsurance certificates, Plaintiff-Appellant AIU Insurance
Company appeals a judgment of the district court granting a motion
for summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee TIG Insurance
Company.  In ruling on the motion, the district court applied New
York choice of law principles, determined that the substantive law
of Illinois applied to the reinsurance contract dispute between
the parties, and held that under Illinois law late notice alone
defeated AIU's claim for coverage under the reinsurance
certificates, and it was not necessary for TIG to prove it had
been prejudiced by the late notice.  AIU appeals, arguing that the
district court should have applied New York substantive law to
decide whether proof of prejudice was required and erred when it
concluded that Illinois law does not require a reinsurer to
demonstrate prejudice in order to avoid any obligation to perform
under the relevant certificates.

Through the late 1970s to the early 1980s, AIU issued umbrella
insurance policies to the Foster Wheeler Corporation.  TIG,
through its predecessor International Insurance Company, reinsured
AIU's Foster Wheeler policies through nine Certificates of
Facultative Reinsurances.  Foster Wheeler, a manufacturer of heat
exchange equipment, was a party in the 1990s to numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits throughout the country.  In 2003, Foster Wheeler
tendered claims to AIU that were rooted in the asbestos
litigation, and the two companies later reached a settlement of
those claims.  In 2007, AIU gave TIG notice of its intent to bill
TIG as its reinsurer under the reinsurance certificates. TIG
refused to pay, arguing that the notice AIU had provided was late.
AIU instituted the present action seeking recovery from TIG under
the reinsurance certificates.  The district court granted TIG's
motion for summary judgment and held that Illinois law applied to
determine the issue of whether the reinsurer had to prove
prejudice from late notice to avoid providing coverage and that
AIU's late notice excused TIG from performance under the
certificates pursuant to Illinois law.  AIU appealed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an
opinion dated Aug. 27, 2014, affirmed the district court's
judgment, finding that AIU's delay from October of 2003 to January
of 2007 in notifying the reinsurer falls outside the bounds of
reasonable notice.

The case is AIU INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIG
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-1580-CV (2d Cir.).

Edward P. Krugman, Esq. -- ekrugman@cahill.com -- Kendra M. Kenny,
Esq. -- kkenny@cahill.com -- at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP;
William Maher, Esq. -- wmaher@wmd-law.com -- and Michael C.
Ledley, Esq. -- mledley@wmd-law.com -- at Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch
LLP; Paul R. Aiudi, AIG Property Casualty, on the brief) Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, New York, FOR APPELLANT.

James I. Rubin, Esq. -- jrubin@butlerrubin.com -- Catherine E.
Isely, Esq. -- cisely@butlerrubin.com -- and Julie Rodriguez
Aldort, Esq. -- jaldort@butlerrubin.com -- at Butler Rubin
Saltarelli & Boyd LLP; Sean Thomas Keely, Esq. --
sean.keely@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP, FOR
APPELLEE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide's Bid to Junk NY PI Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled DEBORA JEAN
ARMANIOUS, as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLES R. NILSSON,
Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190566/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), defendant Union
Carbide Corporation, which sold asbestos under the trade name
"Calidria", moves for summary judgment dismissing all claims
asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff's decedent
Charles R. Nilsson did not identify any UCC product as a source of
his asbestos exposure. In response plaintiff asserts that Mr.
Nilsson was exposed to UCC Calidria used by Kentile Floors, Inc.,
to manufacture floor tiles and by National Gypsum Co. to
manufacture "Gold Bond" joint compound.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York City, in
a decision and order dated Aug. 13, 2014, denied Union Carbide's
motion for summary judgment, after finding that the evidence
clearly demonstrates that National Gypsum incorporated Calidria
into all of its Gold Bond joint compound formulas as of 1969.
And, contrary to Union Carbide's assertions, Mr. Nilson did
identify National Gypsum joint compound as a source of his
exposure during this time period.  Judge Heitler ruled that while
it would be speculative to assume that Mr. Nilson was exposed to
Calidria from Kentile floor tiles, a reasonable inference would be
drawn that he was exposed to Calidria from Gold Bond joint
compound.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Doctor Opinion in PI Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Bobo commenced an action against nine defendants.  Eight
of those were dismissed pursuant to stipulations for dismissal,
leaving only her claims against the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The Plaintiffs, who are the co-personal representatives of the
estate of Mrs. Bobo, maintain a variety of claims against TVA
based on Mrs. Bobo's contraction of pleural mesothelioma from
laundering her husband's work clothes, purportedly containing
asbestos dust originating from his job duties at TVA's Browns
Ferry Nuclear power general facility in Limestone County, Alabama.
TVA filed motions to exclude the specific causation opinions of
Doctors Virginia Wells Wulsin and Eugene Mark.

Judge Lynwood Smith, Jr., of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, denied
the motion to exclude the specific causation opinion of Dr. Eugene
Mark and deemed the motion to exclude the specific causation
opinion of Dr. Victoria Wulsin as moot.

The case is MELISSA ANN BOBO and SHARON JEAN COX, as Co-Personal
Representatives of the Estate of Barbara Bobo, Plaintiffs, v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 12-S-
1930-NE (N.A. Ala.).  A full-text copy of Judge Smith's memorandum
and order dated Aug. 25, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/nfUVA5
from Leagle.com.

Melissa Ann Bobo, deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E
Soechting, Jr, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, Christopher
J Panatier, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, Jay Stuemke,
SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, Rachel Perkins, SIMON
GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC & Rebekah Keith McKinney, WATSON
MCKINNEY LLP.

Shannon Jean Cox, deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E
Soechting, Jr, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, Christopher
J Panatier, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, Jay Stuemke,
SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, Rachel Perkins, SIMON
GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC & Rebekah Keith McKinney, WATSON
MCKINNEY LLP.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Defendant, represented by Edward C
Meade, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Edwin W Small, TENNESSEE VALLEY
AUTHORITY & James S Chase, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Boyer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, in an opinion and order dated Aug. 22,
2014, granted the motions filed by Weyerhaeuser Company and Owens-
Illinois Company seeking dismissal of the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit filed by plaintiffs Milton and Kathy
Boyer.  The Boyers brought claims against the defendants arising
out of Milton's exposure to asbestos and a related disease,
malignant mesothelioma.

The case is MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-286-WMC
(W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/XMHXaXfrom Leagle.com.

Milton Boyer and Kathy Boyer, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas
Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd..

3M Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily
Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

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

Owens-Illinois Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere,
Schiff Hardin, LLP & Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Joshua Lee
Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Burns" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, granted plaintiff
Michael Burns' motion to remand his asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit to the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois.

The case is MICHAEL BURNS, Plaintiff, v. ALL ACQUISITIONS, LLC.,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-232-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision dated Aug. 22, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/4rH4xgfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Allyson Michelle Romani,
Shrader & Associates LLP.

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

All Acquisitions, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and
Cross Defendant, represented by Carla C. Storm, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP &Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Armstrong Pumps, Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna Storer.

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dayna L. Johnson, Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

Atlantic Richfield Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Donald Patrick Eckler, Pretzel & Stouffer.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Beazer East, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski, Bailey et al..

Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Borgwarner Morse Tec., Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs
LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch,
Herzog, Crebs et al..

BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Donald Patrick Eckler, Pretzel & Stouffer.

Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC, Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC
& Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Buffalo Air Handling, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Burnham, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw
& Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D.
Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley
R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski, Bailey et
al..

Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware corporation, successor by merger to
CBS Corp., a Pennsylvania Corp., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Certaineed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita
M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al..

Clark Equipment Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Cleaver Brooks, Defendant, represented by Meredith S Hudgens,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Conwed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Copes Vulcan, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Daniel W. McGrath, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Dennis J.
Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E.
Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen J.
Maassen, Hoagland, Fitzgerald & Pranaitis.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan
L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. &William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al..

Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by William
R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Deere & Company, Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor Watson,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Davin Maitland Reust, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward
M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Kern Oertle, Schiff Hardin
LLP &Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al..

Dezurik, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Eaton Aeroquip, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass,
P.C. & Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C..

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.
& Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C..

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by H. Patrick
Morris, Johnson & Bell.

FL Smidth Dorr-Oliver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Donald Patrick Eckler, Pretzel & Stouffer.

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

Flowserve U.S., Inc., as successor to Rockwell Manufacturing Co.
and Edward Valve Co. and Nordstrom Valce, Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Flowserve U.S., Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al., Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs
LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply,
Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Fluor Constructors International Inc, Defendant, represented
by Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. &William B. Starnes,
II, Reed, Armstrong et al..

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton,
Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong
et al..

Fluor Daniel Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al..

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al..

FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam J. Jagadich, Segal, McCambridge et al..

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

Foxboro Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog
Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael H. Cantieri, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R.
Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP,Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al..

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler
H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC &Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski,
Bailey et al..

Goulds Pumps Inc, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Greene Tweed & Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Greene Tweed & Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab,
Morgan, Lewis et al..

Henry Pratt Company, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis et al..

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom
LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Howden North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E.
Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Hyster Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.
& Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C..

Illinois Tool Works Inc, individually and as successor in interest
to Devcon Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Brian J. Huelsmann, Hepler Broom et al., Benjamin
J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Industrial Holdings Corporation, formerly known as Carborundum
Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented byBenjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci,
HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

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

ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP & Undray
Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP.

J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler
H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC &Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski,
Bailey et al..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Joy Technologies, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Kraissl Company, Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna Storer.

Kvaerner U.S., Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison
K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by John T. Hipskind, Greensfelder, Hemker &
Gale PC &Ryan T. Barke, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC.

McCord Gasket Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N.
Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

McNally Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. &Laura
K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Mine Safety Appliances Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by W. Jeffrey Muskopf, SmithAmundsen LLC, Anne
Elizabeth Bode, SmithAmundsen LLC & Leslie Dean Henke, Jr,
SmithAmundsen.

Mueller Steam Specialty Company, a division of Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page, Gunty
& McCarthy.

MW Custom Papers, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Brian J. Huelsmann, Hepler
Broom et al. & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna Storer.

Navistar International, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison
K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee,
Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Nooter Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas M. Nieder,
Lewis, Rice et al..

Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John
M. Ward, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins,
Parnell et al..

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Parker Hannifin Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Pecora Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

Peerless Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Alva, Matushek Nilles et al.

Pfizer Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin F. O'Malley,
Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jordan T. Ault, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Ross S.
Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Resco Holdings, LLC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC, Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC
& Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Research-Cottrell, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Page,
Gunty & McCarthy.

RIC-WIL, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Rohm and Haas Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Mark Alan Smith, Husch Blackwell LLP-Chattanooga.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Santa Fe Braun, Inc., individually and as successor to C.F. Braun
& Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab,
Morgan, Lewis et al..

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli
PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann
Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Shell Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Shell Oil Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jill Marie Felkins, Segal, McCambridge et al., Jonathan M.
Lively, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Sherwin Williams Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy J.
Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & John A. Bruegger, Hawkins,
Parnell et al..

Simpson Timber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Special Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jessica
K. Velez, Matushek Nilles et al.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Daniel W. McGrath, Esq. -- dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com
-- Dennis J. Graber, Esq. -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com -- Kevin T.
Dawson, Esq., Mark D. Bauman, Esq. -- mbauman@hinshawlaw.com --
Nicole E. Rice, Esq., and Trevor A. Sondag, Esq. --
tsondag@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., as successor in interest to Marley
Cooling Tower, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski, Bailey et al..

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, formerly known as Peerless Pump
Co, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N.
Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael
R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Swindell-Dressler International Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Keith J. Hays, Hill Fulwider, PC.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard Inc,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented
by Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Treco Construction Services, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC, Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC
& Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs
LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply,
Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

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

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Viking Pump Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

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

Watson McDaniel Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John P. Cunningham, Brown & James PC &Tucker
Blaser, Brown & James PC.

Weil McLain, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley
R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Weir Valves & Controls, USA, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Whiting Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Wm. Powell Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna Storer.

XEF, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Young Group, Ltd., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lise A. Newton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert J. Brummond, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court OKs Rule 5(c) Motions in "Denton" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted the motions
pursuant to Rule 5(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure filed by Defendants Essex Specialty Products, LLC, Ethyl
Corporation, Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Honeywell, Inc., The
Dow Chemical Company, and Union Carbide Corporation in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled ROBERT FRAZIOR
DENTON, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1243-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.).

Rule 5(c)(1) provides that if an action involves an unusually
large number of defendants, the court may, on motion or on its
own, order that. . . any crossclaim, counterclaim, avoidance, or
affirmative defense in those pleadings and replies to them will be
treated as denied or avoided by all other parties.

A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's Decision dated Aug. 21,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/olQwMDfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Affirms Ruling in "Ehlert" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ralma Ehlert and Tamara Jones appeal a trial court judgment
dismissing their asbestos claims against Brand Insulations Inc.
Ehlert challenges the court's dismissal of his strict liability
claims at the close of all evidence, its jury instructions, and
its exclusion of Ehlert's proffered newspaper articles about
asbestos.  Brand cross appeals, challenging the trial court's
denial of its motions for judgment as a matter of law at the close
of Ehlert's case on Ehlert's strict liability and negligence
claims and at the close of evidence on Ehlert's negligence claims.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirmed the
lower court's ruling and, because it rejected Ehlert's claims, did
not consider Brand's cross appeal.  The Court of Appeals ruled
that the record supports that the trial court's dismissal of
Ehlert's strict liability claims.  The trial court, according to
the Court of Appeals, did not abuse its discretion when it
instructed the jury or when it excluded Ehlert's proferred
newspaper articles about asbestos.

The case is RALMA EHLERT, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of ROBERT S. EHLERT; and TAMARA
JONES, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JAMES A. JONES,
Appellants, v. BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., Respondent, HASKELL
CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. 70309-9-I (Wash. App.).  A full-text
copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated Aug. 25, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/8uRoi2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Fanelli" Suit Remanded to Ill. State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, remanded to the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, the the asbestos-
related personal injury action styled WILLIAM FANELLI, Plaintiff,
v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-
CV-1035-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.)., after finding that only state law
claims remain the case.  A full-text copy of the magistrate
judge's order dated Aug. 19, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/8UFNyifrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Awarded Partial Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
From 1962 to 1981, Century Indemnity Company issued various
primary and excess liability policies to Caterpillar Tractor
Company, some of which were reinsured by Global Reinsurance
Corporation of America.  Since 1988, thousands of lawsuits have
been brought against Caterpillar by various plaintiffs alleging
bodily injury resulting from exposure to asbestos.  In January
2001, Caterpillar requested coverage and the defense of these
Claims from Century.

In 2004, Caterpillar and Century commenced declaratory judgment
actions against each other to resolve coverage issues concerning
the Policies.  As a result, Century became obligated to reimburse
Caterpillar for defense expenses in addition to the indemnity
limits of the Policies.  Subsequently, Century has paid more than
$60 million to Caterpillar, most of which was for expenses as
opposed to loss.  In 2013, Century settled the remainder of its
past indemnity and expense costs owed to Caterpillar.  Century
continues to incur indemnity and expense costs for new asbestos-
related suits brought against Caterpillar.

Global filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a
declaration that the dollar amount stated in the "Reinsurance
Accepted" section of each of the nine Certificates caps the
maximum amount that Global can be obligated to pay for combined
loss and expenses.

In an opinion and order dated Aug. 15, 2014, Judge Lorna G.
Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the Plaintiff's motion, ruling that based on the
plain language of the Certificates and the Second Circuit's
binding precedent, Global's motion should be granted.  The dollar
amount indicated in each of the Certificate Limits is the maximum
amount that Global can be obligated to pay for loss and expenses,
combined.

The case is GLOBAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v. CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 13 CIV. 06577
(LGS)(S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Schonfield's Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/y3TGBQfrom Leagle.com.

Global Reinsurance Corporation of America, Plaintiff and Counter
Defendant, represented by David Louis Pitchford, Esq. --
dpitchford@pitchfordllc.com -- at Pitchford Law Group LLC; and
Daniel Steven Brower, Esq. -- at Pitchford Law Group LLC.
Century Indemnity Company, Defendant and Counter Claimant,
represented by Daryn E. Rush, Esq. -- rushd@whiteandwilliams.com -
- Brendan D. McQuiggan, Esq. -- mcquigganb@whiteandwilliams.com --
Ellen K. Burrows, Esq. -- burrowse@whiteandwilliams.com -- and
Zareef Jalal Nurul Ahmed, Esq. -- ahmedz@whiteandwilliams.com --
at White & Williams, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rule 5(c)(1) Motion Granted in "Hager" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled THOMAS
HAGER, Plaintiff, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13 CV-1324-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Magistrate
Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois granted Defendant Union Carbide
Corporation's motion filed pursuant to Rule 5(c)(1)(Bof the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that if an action
involves an unusually large number of defendants, the court may,
on motion or on its own, order that. . .  any crossclaim,
counterclaim, avoidance, or affirmative defense in those pleadings
and replies to them will be treated as denied or avoided by all
other parties.  A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's
decision is available at http://is.gd/oe9w50from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Del. PI Suits v. GE, Reichhold Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, issued a
memorandum opinion and order dated Aug. 21, 2014, granting the
motion for summary judgment filed by Reichhold, Inc., and General
Electric Co. seeking dismissal of the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits filed by Michael Jamesson and Roger Cordon, but
denied the request for summary judgment as to the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits filed by Anna Rose Hartgrave and Yvonne
Weaver.  The Plaintiffs allege that their exposure to asbestos-
containing materials occurred during the various time periods that
they worked for Square D Company (n/k/a Schneider Electric) at its
Cedar Rapids, Iowa plant.

The Superior Court held that Mr. Jamesson is the only plaintiff
who alleges exposure to GE asbestos-containing products but Mr.
Jamesson has failed to produce any probative evidence
demonstrating any exposure to a GE asbestos-containing product.

The Superior Court further held that viewing the facts in the
light most favorable to the plaintiffs, it appears clear that Ms.
Hartgrave and Ms. Weaver each experienced significant dust
exposure from various molding compounds over the course of decades
of combined employment at Square D.

The cases are IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MICHAEL
JAMESSON, Plaintiff, v. REICHHOLD, INC., and GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.,
Defendants; ROGER GORDON, Plaintiff, v. REICHHOLD, INC.,
Defendant; ANNA ROSE HARTGRAVE, Plaintiff, v. REICHHOLD, INC.,
Defendant; and YVONNE WEAVER, Plaintiff, v. REICHHOLD, INC.,
Defendant, C.A. NOS. 12C-03-149 ASB, 11C-09-132ASB, 09C-07-303ASB,
09C-02-063ASB (Del. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/QWMNCxfrom Leagle.com.

Raeann Warner, Esquire, Elizabeth Lewis, Esquire, Jacobs &
Crumpler, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, David C. Thompson, Esquire,
David C. Thompson, P.C., Grand Forks, North Dakota, Attorneys for
Plaintiffs.

Margaret E. Juliano, Esquire, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and
Hippel, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Robert E. Thackston, Esq. --
rthackston@hptylaw.com -- Susan E. Egeland, Esq. --
segeland@hptylaw.com -- and Todd A. Martin, Esq., at Hawkins
Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for
Defendant Reichhold, Inc.

Beth E. Valocchi, Esquire, Allison L. Texter, Esquire, Swartz
Campbell, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant
General Electric Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendants in "Masephol" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Richard Masephol brings claims against defendants
arising out of his exposure to asbestos and a related disease,
malignant mesothelioma.  Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company, the
former owner of a door manufacturing plant where Masephol worked
and asbestos fireproofing products were produced, moves to dismiss
negligent nuisance and intentional nuisance claims brought against
it on the theory that those claims are barred by Wisconsin's
Workers' Compensation Act.  Defendant Owens-Illinois Company seeks
dismissal of product liability claims premised solely on its
licensing of a patent claiming a fireproof door.

In an order dated Aug. 22, 2014, Judge William M. Conley of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, granted both motions for the reasons set forth in the
opinion and order in Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 14-cv-286 (W.D.
Wis. August 22, 2014).

A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision relating to the
Masephol suit is available at http://is.gd/Tfl7rafrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision in Boyer is available
at http://is.gd/XMHXaXfrom Leagle.com.

Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd..

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily Zapotocny, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c..

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP &
Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Joshua Lee
Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Espanola School
----------------------------------------------------
Kim Vallez, writing for KRQE News 13, reported that state
inspectors have "red-tagged" a school building in Espanola, New
Mexico.

Inspectors are asking for the facility to be vacated. The building
on north Coronado Avenue houses the Carinos de los Ninos Charter
School and Espanola public schools kindergarten and pre-k program.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, inspections found shocking
violations including exposed wires, asbestos, inadequate
ventilation and mold.

The Espanola superintendent said the district is asking parents to
keep children home while it works to find a new place.

The inspections followed complaints from parents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Riverina Reserve Closed Due to Toxic Dust
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pearson, writing for The Daily Advertiser, reported that a
Murrumbidgee River reserve, in New South Wales, has been closed by
an illegal rubbish dump believed to be riddled with asbestos.  The
gates at Kohlhagen's travelling stock reserve, on the Old
Narrandera Road, have been padlocked shut -- one of three
irresponsible disposals under investigation by Riverina Local Land
Services (LLS).

In the latest incident, authorities were alerted to multiple dumps
beside the Wagga-Holbrook Road about 17km south of Wagga at the
weekend.  Two large piles of household material -- including
lounge room furniture, mattresses, carpet and timber -- were
disposed of at Plum Pudding Reserve, near Coloboralli Creek.  Both
have been dumped just a couple of metres off the road and about
250 metres apart.

Riverina LLS acting manager of land services Mark Leary said
samples of the material had been sent to a Melbourne laboratory
for analysis and the outcome would determine the presence of
asbestos. Mr Leary described the area as a hot spot for illegal
dumping, which was a "huge concern" irrespective of location.

"This is something that happens on a regular basis," Mr Leary
said.

"The chances of finding the owner of the waste . . . is next to
zero.

"It's a sad situation that people don't utilise the facilities
that are there (to dispose the material correctly)."

Mr Leary said an initial inspection of the Kohlhagen's TSR rubbish
indicated a presence of asbestos was highly likely but the extent
of contamination at the Plum Pudding reserve was yet to be
determined.

"The clean-up costs skyrocket as soon as it's asbestos," he said.

The latest dumps come just weeks after new compliance signs and
surveillance cameras were rolled out at public reserves to combat
illegal activity -- a joint initiative by Riverina LLS, Wagga City
Council and Crown Lands.

The third dump under investigation is in the Tumut area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schools Seek OK for Fibro Removal Spending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wind, writing for WCF Courier, reported that Waterloo
Community Schools, in Iowa, will seek increased budget authority
to cover the cost of asbestos removal and English language learner
instruction during the past year.

The Board of Education approved submitting the requests for
modified allowable growth to the state's School Budget Review
Committee during its October meeting.  The district is seeking
$302,994 for asbestos removal and $890,100 for ELL instruction.

Michael Coughlin, the district's chief financial officer, told the
board asbestos removal was required for demolition of the old
Irving School as well as for construction work at Hoover Middle
School and Expo Alternative Learning Center.

Asbestos, once used in insulation and other building materials,
can cause cancer if not properly handled during construction or
demolition.

"This is a process we are required to do by federal law," said
Coughlin, so the modified allowable growth process is available to
districts.

The ELL request will also cover actual costs of that program.
Officials said between the additional per-pupil funding to
instruct English language learners in the state aid formula and
the number of years it's available, the money typically doesn't
meet the educational needs of those students.

If approved by the state committee, the district will have the
authority to raise property taxes next year to cover those costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Leak Mitigated at Ridgefield High
--------------------------------------------------------
The Reflector reported that officials in Ridgefield School
District, Washington, have contained an asbestos fiber release in
the high school's locker rooms, Superintendent Nathan McCann said
in a news release issued Aug. 21.

During the previous week, construction crews mounting a fire
sprinkler system in the locker rooms drilled holes into ceiling
tiles that contained asbestos, "causing a fiber release episode
where asbestos fibers released into the air can be inhaled,
possibly causing health problems," according to the release.

Less than one square foot of asbestos tile was damaged, McCann
said. District personnel enacted the Asbestos Hazardous Emergency
Response Act (AHERA) procedures to contain and mitigate the
situation.

Access to the area was immediately restricted after the discovery
of asbestos dust, and a certified AHERA project designer employed
by PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc., the asbestos mitigation
contractor retained by the district, put together a cleanup
strategy. AHERA contractors removed "gross debris" and any
affected surfaces, and the exposed area was cleaned by certified
AHERA contractors using HEPA-filter vacuums and wet-wiping,
according to the release.

After a visual test was passed, air sampling tests were performed
to ensure adequate air quality before allowing people back in the
area.

"Student health and safety is our top priority," McCann said. "We
are disposing of exposed athletic equipment in order to completely
limit student exposure to asbestos fibers."

Among the equipment that will be disposed of are football jerseys,
shoulder pads, helmets and a variety of other pads for pants.
Volleyball game and practice nets along with safety pads for
officials' stands also were disposed of, as well as a small amount
of other athletic equipment, the release said.

Orders have been placed for all of the football gear, which is
expected to arrive the first week of September before the opening
game.

"We understand that this episode has been a hardship on our
football and volleyball players," said Debbie Bentler, athletic
director for the school district. "Our coaches and players have
been really patient in working with us through resolving this
matter."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Agrees AIU's Fibro Claim Came Too Late
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reported that the Second Circuit
ruled that TIG Insurance Co. doesn't owe $23 million to AIU
Insurance stemming from a dispute about a settlement with Foster
Wheeler Corp. over asbestos suit coverage, finding that Illinois
law applies in the case and that AIU waited too long to file a
claim.

The appeals court affirmed a lower court's decision granting
summary judgment in favor of TIG on the grounds AIU had breached
its reinsurance certificates by not giving prompt notice to TIG
about a claim from Foster Wheeler for coverage of asbestos-related
injury suits. AIU informed TIG in January 2007, though it had
settled the coverage fight with Foster Wheeler in June 2006,
according to the panel's opinion.

The appeals court rejected arguments from AIU that the applicable
contacts with New York outweigh those with Illinois and that New
York law should be used to determine what TIG's obligations
consisted of instead of Illinois law.

"AIU argues that the applicable contacts with New York outweigh
those with Illinois, and thus the source of substantive law should
be that of New York. We are not persuaded," the panel's opinion
states. "On this point, we agree with the district court's well-
reasoned decision holding that the circumstances of these
reinsurance certificates favor the application of Illinois law."

Through the late 1970s to the early 1980s, AIU issued umbrella
insurance policies to Foster Wheeler, a manufacturer of heat
exchange equipment, the appeals panel said. TIG, through its
predecessor International Insurance Co., reinsured AIU's Foster
Wheeler policies.

Foster Wheeler was a party in the 1990s to numerous asbestos-
related lawsuits throughout the country. In 2003, Foster Wheeler
tendered claims to AIU as a result of the asbestos litigation, and
the two companies later reached a settlement. In 2007, AIU gave
TIG notice of its intent to bill TIG as its reinsurer under the
reinsurance certificates, but the panel said TIG refused to pay,
arguing that the notice AIU had provided was late. AIU filed suit
in New York in 2007.

TIG argued AIU's case could not continue because Illinois law does
not require a reinsurer to prove prejudice when it refuses to pay
a claim for reinsurance coverage based on having received late
notice of that claim. The appeals panel noted that AIU had failed
to offer any argument that it provided timely notice to TIG, and
under Illinois law, that fact alone is sufficient to deny a claim.

The appeals panel said that while Illinois courts have excused
late notice in a number of very limited circumstances in the
direct insurance context, none of those circumstances are present
in the current case.

"We agree with the district court, therefore, that a three-year
delay on the part of the ceding company before notifying a
reinsurer of a claim falls outside the bounds of reasonable
notice," the panel's opinion states. "TIG was entitled to refuse
coverage under the certificates. The district court correctly
determined that TIG was entitled to summary judgment."

The panel consisted of U.S. Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall and U.S.
District Judge J. Garvan Murtha. Circuit Judge  John M. Walker Jr.
was originally assigned to the panel but was later recused.

Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to a request
from Law360 for comment.

AIU is represented by Edward P. Krugman of Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, William Maher and Michael C. Ledley of Wollmuth Maher &
Deutsch LLP and by Paul R. Aiudi of AIG Property Casualty.

TIG is represented by James I. Rubin, Catherine E. Isely and Julie
Rodriguez Aldort of Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP and Sean
Thomas Keely of Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The case is AIU Insurance Co. v. TIG Insurance Co., case number
13-1580, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Residents Angry After Fibro Burnt in Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waikato Times reported that a group of residents and business
owners in Taupo, New Zealand, are furious they may have been
exposed to asbestos during a controlled burning of three houses.

The Central Lakes Area Fire Service used the houses in Spa Road
for training volunteer firefighters and it was later confirmed
that asbestos was found.

The small fibres in asbestos can cause fatal diseases. Asbestos is
a group of minerals made up of small fibres and, according to the
Ministry of Health, it is a risk when breathed in as fine dust.

Advocacy group Asbestos.com states that although it is heat-
resistant it can be highly toxic in fires because of smoke often
carrying minute fibres.

A source said asbestos was found in one of the houses before it
was burnt, but it was given the all clear by the Taupo District
Council once it was removed.

However, according to a letter from the Bay of Plenty District
Health Board issued to some residents by The Taupo District
Council, at the completion of the exercise, asbestos-containing
material was still discovered in the building.

Although some residents have received the letter, others,
including those directly opposite the site, have not.

One neighbour said she had been breathing in the smoke all day and
had not been told asbestos had been found.

"Everyone was there and there were people coughing," she said.

Another neighbour and former nurse said she had no idea they were
at risk.

"My understanding with the exposure to asbestos is that the
effects don't necessarily show up for years," she said.

"I would like to know what the council is going to do about this
as our houses were all covered in the smoke and there are still
bits of building material blowing down the street."

A nearby business owner said the situation was unacceptable.

"To expose all the people that were here watching and the firemen,
who I have the utmost respect for, it is just diabolical and
someone needs to be held accountable," he said.

Central Lakes Fire Service assistant area commander Hamish Smith
said the service was working with the public heath service and
council on the matter.

"Prior to the house burn, the NZFS had instructed and been advised
by the contractor on behalf of the owner that all asbestos had
been removed," he said.

The council's consents and regulatory manager, David Greaves, said
there was no formal approval needed or given by the Taupo District
Council.

"The New Zealand Fire Service used this as an exercise, which is a
permitted activity under the Regional Plan, and they did all the
preparation work," he said.

"We were aware the exercise was taking place but only became
involved once it was suspected asbestos was present, had this not
occurred we would have had no involvement at all."

Greaves said the BoP DHB medical officer of health had provided
guidelines for the decontamination of any affected properties.

"At this stage we believe it is limited to one property in the
immediate vicinity," he said.

He said the amount of asbestos was believed to be minor, with
indications showing it had been used in soffits and a portion of
cladding on one small building.

"We advised the contractor who was in charge to secure the site
after it was suspected asbestos was present. Testing was
undertaken and a positive result was received. The site had
already been secured at this point," he said.

"The Taupo District Council, Waikato Regional Council and the
medical officer of health have [also] attended the site and it is
believed all materials have been secured."

BoP DHB medical officer of health James Miller advised people to
stay away from the site and not touch any building materials while
it was being professionally cleared.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Still Present on Horn Island
---------------------------------------------------------
WLOX13.com reported that Gulf Islands National Seashore
Superintendent Dan Brown announced that the National Park Service
is continuing its efforts to remove hazardous materials from Horn
Island, Mississippi.

In 2012, clean-up crews discovered hazardous materials over a 30
acre part of the 2,700 acre island. Asbestos and mustard gas had
been detected on a small area of the island known as "the
chimney." That area was the site of an old military chemical
testing facility that was active in the early to mid 1940s.

Further testing has since revealed the positive test for mustard
gas was inaccurate, and that mustard gas is actually not present
on the island. However, asbestos remains a health hazard.

"We have begun work with a contract company to remove the visible
pieces of asbestos containing material in the area known as "The
Chimney Site," on the northwestern shore of the island. The site
includes the remains of a military chemical weapons testing
facility that was active in the 1940s," Brown said.

After the visible asbestos material is removed, the team will test
the air and sand to determine how much asbestos remains on the
site and prepare recommendations on how to proceed to insure
public safety. The area will remain closed until work is
completed.

"Our highest priority remains the safety of the public and our
employees," Brown said. He also apologized for any inconvenience
to visitors of the island.

Because of the materials involved, the NPS must follow the process
outlined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, commonly known as the Superfund.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths in UK to Peak in Next 5 Yrs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Evans, writing for Oxford Mail, reported that asbestos
deaths are set to reach a record high in Oxfordshire, England, in
the next six years, it has been warned.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has said because of the 30-
to 40-year delay -- where the substance is in the body but not
causing harmful effects -- more lives could be claimed in the
coming years.

Solicitors bringing compensation claims said they have seen a rise
in cases from Oxfordshire including from those who worked in
particular areas at the Cowley plant, Didcot Power Station and
Harwell's atomic energy plant, between the 1950s and 1970s, as
asbestos was prevalent in industrial buildings.

The HSE expects deaths in Oxfordshire to peak from 2015-2020 in
line with other parts of the UK.

Peter Lodge, an industrial disease specialist at Cheltenham's
Festival Law, said he had dealt with more than 100 claims in
Oxfordshire over the last 20 years.

He said: "I've seen a significant increase in numbers in recent
years and sadly that's the way it's going to be until we reach the
peak over the next few years. Oxford was a big industrial area."

He said he had dealt with several claims relating to people
working at the Cowley plant when it was run by British Leyland
from 1967 to 1986, Didcot Power Station and Harwell's Atomic
Energy Research Establishment.

He said: "Most claims are from males in their 60s or 70s who
worked in industry between the 1950s and the 1970s.

"It's coming back to haunt people and 'ticking timebomb' is
probably quite a suitable phrase."

HSE spokesman Jason Green said: "The number of deaths s Continued
from page 1 attributed to mesothelioma is likely to increase in
the next five years as a result of historical exposure and the
most vulnerable now are tradespeople working in building
renovation."

The HSE said between 1981 and 1985 there were eight deaths in
Oxfordshire from mesothelioma, the most common form of asbestos-
related cancer.

This rose to 29 in 1986-90, 45 from 1991-95, 49 from 1996-2000, 71
from 2001-05 and 77 from 2006-10. In Wiltshire it was 64 and in
Buckinghamshire 76 for 2006-10.

From 1981-85 some 2,356 people died across the UK but this rose to
2,291 in 2011 alone and is predicted to increase to 2,438 in 2017
and 2018.

Oxford has been named one of seven areas alongside Manchester,
Leicester, Cambridge, Wales, Portsmouth and Bristol, to have a
specialist nurse brought in by the national charity Mesothelioma
UK. The nurse will be based at the Churchill Hospital's Pleural
Unit which specialises in diagnosing and treating pleural
conditions including mesothelioma.  They will help provide support
to patients and their families.

It comes after we reported how former Cowley plant health and
safety officer Anthony Boodell died in April, aged 75, following
exposure at the factory. A coroner ruled the Kidlington resident
-- an employee at the plant from 1954-88 -- died of industrial
disease, epithelial mesothelioma. The inquest heard that the
former tinsmith removed furnaces, ovens and lagging to 1968 and in
2010 said he was exposed to asbestos dust.

Rebecca Baxter, spokeswoman for current owner BMW Group which took
over in 1994, said: "Almost all of the asbestos exposures took
place before this date.

"Obviously as the current owner of the plant we do all we can to
make sure that the insurance companies of the site's previous
owners receive any claims as quickly as possible and will continue
to do so."

County mesothelioma victims include Eynsham grandfather-of-six
Larrie Lewington, who died last October, aged 65.

A coroner ruled Mr Lewington -- who worked at Witney's Kidlington
Insulation from 1973 to 1978 -- died of industrial disease.

Daughter Rebecca Lewington, 31, said: "There are no warning signs.

"So many people out there have asbestos in their lungs and don't
know about it."

London-based solicitor Kevin Johnson, of Slater and Gordon, who
has dealt with Didcot Power Station cases, said: "It was
previously thought that incidences of mesothelioma would have
peaked before now, but that has not happened, partly we believe
due to the levels of asbestos that remains in buildings."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charity Blasts University Over Fibro in Rooms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmarthen Journal reported that Trinity St David University,
which has campuses in Carmarthen and Lampeter, in England, is
among three Welsh universities to confirm they have rooms
containing asbestos.  It said asbestos could be found in 443 rooms
at its Lampeter and Carmarthen bases.

Cardiff and Aberystwyth universities also confirmed they have
rooms with the material.  They said that because asbestos was
considered low risk in the rooms, they do not tell students it is
there.

The British Lung Foundation described this as reckless while the
National Union of Students called for transparency.

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 if inhaled the fibres can cause lung
complaints such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.

In a statement the university said: "All student bedrooms at the
University of Wales Trinity St David have been surveyed in
accordance with the relevant Health and Safety Executive
requirements.

"The university is currently reviewing its position on informing
students."

Commenting of the statistics of asbestos across the universities,
Beth Button, president of 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, while ensuring they remain
completely transparent with students about the standards of their
accommodation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Panel Affirms Ford's Win in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported
that Ford Motor Co. cannot be held liable in a case involving
asbestos-containing auto parts manufactured and distributed by its
subsidiary in the United Kingdom, the state Superior Court has
ruled.

A three-judge panel upheld Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Judge Arnold L. New's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ford.
The panel was composed of Judges Kate Ford Elliott and Sallie
Updyke Mundy, and Senior Judge John L. Musmanno.

The suit was filed by Paul Rowland in 2011 and continued by way of
Amy Smith, the administratrix of his estate. Rowland alleged that
exposure to Ford of Britain and Borg & Beck Britain (BorgWarner's
English subsidiary) parts in Britain contributed to his
development of mesothelioma. New granted summary judgment in favor
of Ford in January.

Musmanno wrote in the Superior Court's memorandum that Smith
claimed on appeal that the parts Rowland was exposed to were
marketed as Ford products and that Ford had significant control
over its subsidiary.

In response to the plaintiff's appeal, Musmanno said the court
adopted the reasoning set out in New's January opinion, in which
New wrote that Rowland did not pierce the corporate veil of Ford
Motor Co. Ltd. (referred to as Ford of Britain).

New said a plaintiff must demonstrate that a parent company
controls the subsidiary to a significant degree in order for
piercing to be appropriate, providing evidence that the subsidiary
was undercapitalized, the entities did not adhere to corporate
formalities, or that the entities intermingled their affairs or
funds.

"Plaintiff essentially seeks to hold defendant Ford Motor Co.
liable based on its normal parent-subsidiary relationship with
Ford of Britain," New said. "Plaintiff has not demonstrated the
level of domination and control necessary to pierce the corporate
veil."

Rowland did not sue Ford of Britain or Borg & Beck Britain, only
their U.S. parent companies, New said. Rowland claimed that the
parent companies "directly or indirectly" produced and supplied
the parts at issue.

The alleged exposure occurred in Uttoxeter, England, from 1967 to
1983. There, Rowland's father was an auto mechanic who used the
Ford of Britain brakes and Borg & Beck Britain clutches at his
garage. According to New, those parts were manufactured and
supplied in England.

Rowland testified to having inhaled dust when he visited his
father's garage and when he came into contact with his father's
person and clothing at home.

Rowland also claimed to have been exposed to "original" Ford
brakes on a single occasion when he and his father inspected
Rowland's 1990 Ford Mustang in Maryland, according to New, two
years after Rowland moved to the United States.

New concluded, however, that compared to the alleged frequent
exposure in England, Rowland's one-time exposure in Maryland was
minimal in terms of developing mesothelioma.

According to New, Rowland argued that Ford "dominated and
controlled" Ford of Britain by including its financial information
in Ford's annual reports, approving Ford of Britain's officers and
directors, and supervising its operations and product lines, among
other things. Ford claimed that its English subsidiary was a fully
funded, independent manufacturer of parts.

The court was not persuaded by Rowland's argument to pierce Ford
of Britain's corporate veil, New said.

"A case for piercing is not made out by merely showing the parent
owned the subsidiary, the parent exercised some control over the
subsidiary, and/or the parent and the subsidiary had similar
names," New said.

In his second argument, Rowland claimed that Ford and BorgWarner
were liable as "apparent manufacturers" of the products in
question.

New said according to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a
defendant may be liable as an apparent manufacturer of a product
it does not actually manufacture but nonetheless "puts out as his
own."

Citing Brandimarti v. Caterpillar Tractor, New explained the state
Superior Court ruled that Caterpillar was the apparent
manufacturer of a forklift made by its subsidiary, Towmotor. The
court reasoned that because the Towmotor forklift displayed the
Caterpillar name, a purchaser could reasonably believe that he or
she was buying a Caterpillar product.

However, New determined in Rowland's case that the Ford name was
not synonymous with Ford Motor Co. and that Borg & Beck Britain
was its own, distinct company also. He added that "there is no
indication that a[n] English user of the Ford of Britain and Borg
& Beck parts would have thought those parts were manufactured by
defendants Ford Motor Co. and BorgWarner."

New said there was insufficient basis to hold Ford and BorgWarner
liable for the parts Rowland's father used in England.

"Ford Motor Co. and BorgWarner had little to no control over the
'Ford' and 'Borg & Beck' parts, and there is no indication that
those parts were 'put out' as Ford Motor Co. and BorgWarner's."
Ford was represented by Sharon L. Caffrey and Robert L. Byer of
Duane Morris.

"We are happy that the Superior Court judges after independently
reviewing this case concluded that Judge New's careful analysis of
the issues was correct," Byer said.

Benjamin Shein of the Shein Law Center in Philadelphia represented
the plaintiff and did not return a call seeking comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Church Fails to Obtain Fibro Inspection
--------------------------------------------------------
Sara Karnes, writing for Branson Tri-Lakes News, reported that the
state of Missouri has found that a Rockaway Beach church is in
violation for failing to have a building inspected for asbestos
before performing renovation work.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources stated in a letter of
warning issued on Aug. 29 that Bridge of Faith Community Church
failed to have a project inspected by a certified asbestos
inspector prior to completing a construction project.

DNR Communications Director Gena Terlizzi said because the
department was notified after the renovation had taken place, the
department was unable to test for asbestos.

"There has to be an inspection before any demolition," Terlizzi
said.

According to the letter of warning addressed to Bridge of Faith
Community Church Pastor Jonathan McGuire, "The church renovated
the 2,600-square-foot office of a resort at 200 Lake St. in
Rockaway Beach, including removal of interior walls. The church
failed to have the affected facility or part of the facility where
the demolition or renovation operation occurred inspected by a
Missouri certified asbestos inspector for the presence of
asbestos, including Category I and Category II nonfriable asbestos
containing material."

Asbestos, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's
website, is associated with health risks such as: "lung cancer,
mesothelioma -- a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin
lining of the lung, chest and the abdomen and heart -- and
asbestosis -- a serious progressive, long-term, non-cancer disease
of the lungs."

The inspection began on Aug. 6.

"The inspection was prompted by a citizen's concern reported to
this office which alleged that the church did not properly
document a demolition project," the letter states.
The DNR letter states that the church made a thrift store from a
resort office.

"The required asbestos inspection was not performed prior to the
renovation," the letter states.

The letter states that the waste from the resort office was
removed by Waste Corporation of Missouri to a permitted landfill.
Necessary action, according to the DNR letter, includes: "On all
future renovations or demolitions, ensure that Missouri registered
contractors and/or certified individuals are employed and submit a
notification form provided by the department at least ten (10)
working days prior to the start of the project to the Air
Pollution Control Program. Please provide any additional receipts
of disposal not already provided to our office for any demolition
waste disposed of this year."

The letter also includes statements relating to other properties
owned by Bridge of Faith Community Church, but were not considered
violations.

"A residential structure on Larkspur Avenue in Rockaway Beach was
demolished by church parishioners," the letter states. "This
demolition was not connected to the resort project and the
structure was and apparently has always been a single family
residential structure. Therefore, it is exempt from the asbestos
requirements in the 10 CSR 10-6.080 Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. The demolition waste from the Larkspur
Avenue residence was removed by Waste Corporation of Missouri to a
permitted landfill and the receipts have been provided."

The other property mentioned is a women's shelter.

"A women's shelter in Rockaway Beach was remodeled by the church
parishioners," the letter states. "Remodeling of the women's
shelter only involved paint scraping and did not include
disturbance of potentially asbestos-containing materials."

Tension has been strained among some community members concerning
the investigation. At two town hall meetings, the issue arose. The
Aug. 25 town hall meeting resulted in two Rockaway Beach residents
arguing to the point a city police officer had to step in to calm
the situation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Spuds Factory Plan Sparks Residents' Fibro Fear
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Bryan, writing for ABC News, reported that residents in
north-east Tasmania, in Australia, said they were concerned a
proposed organic potato processing factory in East Devonport could
expose them to asbestos.

Resident Tony Butler said the old Tascot carpet factory was
unsuitable for food processing due to asbestos contamination.

"It should be knocked down and the site should be rehabilitated
before anybody can work here," he said.

Potato farmer Terrence Rattray bought the abandoned factory so he
could keep up with burgeoning demand for his organic produce.

But Mr Rattray said the asbestos would not pose a threat.

"There's asbestos on the site, that's all very well sealed and
safe," he said.

He said his old site in Pyengana simply wasn't keeping up.

"Add another 20 per cent most years and we just don't have the
capacity at Pyengana anymore," he said.

Around 80 per cent of the produce is shipped across Bass Strait
and beyond.

But Mr Rattray said transport costs were starting to take a toll.

"It's about $120,000 a year it's been costing us, that's just on
our current turnover, to get stock from Pyengana to Devonport but
the biggest problem for us is the turnaround time," he said.

Potato hub could employ up to 100 people: owner

Mr Rattray's new aquisition is just a stone's throw from the port.
He plans to create a potato processing hub, employing at least 20
people.

"There's no reason why it couldn't employ 100 within the next five
years," he said.

"We'd like to get into some value-adding, some pre-packaged and
pre-cooked products."

Jan Davis from the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association has
thrown her support behind the project.

"Any opportunity that we have to value-add Tasmanian primary
produce is a great one," she said.

But the factory has become a hot issue for the local council,
which granted special permission for processing to take place
there.

Devonport Mayor, Steve Martin, said the area has been a
residential zone since Tascot closed four years ago.

"It now opens it up for community representation for a three-week
period," he said.

Some residents want the land used for new housing.

Former Tascot employee Belinda Emery said she supported the plan.

"The area's there to work with so it may as well be used for
people getting jobs," he said.

"It's a shame that it's just been sitting there."

The factory could be operating by November if approved by the
state planning body.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Halts "Jeopardy!" Block Razing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Skip Dickstein, writing for Times Union, reported that demolition
began but was suspended on homes in Sheridan Hollow, in Albany,
New York, after asbestos was found.

The stretch of vacant houses near the intersection of Sheridan and
Swan streets gained nationwide notoriety when a photo of it
appeared on a 2012 "Jeopardy!" episode referencing urban blight.

The demolition is part of the Sheridan Hollow Revitalization
Project by Habitat for Humanity Capital District and its partner
Housing Visions.

"Jeopardy Corner" will become part of a community designed to
create opportunities for affordable homeownership, new retail and
commercial investments and other improvements," Habitat officials
said.

The Sheridan Hollow Revitalization Project is in its first phase,
which consists of 10 single-family Habitat homes and 10 more homes
funded by the Touhey Homeownership Foundation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tampa Jury Awards Nearly $37MM in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa Bay Times reported that a Tampa, Florida jury awarded nearly
$37 million to asbestos plaintiffs in a brake-lining-exposure
lawsuit, finding Pneumo Abex LLC 75 percent liable. The jury in
the Florida 13th Judicial Circuit Court for Hillsborough County
reached the verdict. Chief Judge Manuel Menendez Jr. presided over
the 21/2-week trial, which ended after two hours of deliberations.

Gary Hampton, a former Tampa resident who now lives in Virginia,
worked as a mechanic for seven years in the 1970s. He said he was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2013 stemming from his exposure to
brake linings made by Pneumo Abex and Ford Motor Co.

Jurors found Pneumo Abex negligent for failing to warn Hampton
about the dangers of asbestos-containing brake linings and
strictly liable for placing a defective product in the stream of
commerce. Pneumo Abex was the lone remaining defendant. Ford Motor
reached an earlier settlement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equityholder in Fibro Case Wants Fee Examiner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reported that Coltec Industries Inc., the parent company and
primary equityholder in a gasket maker in bankruptcy, has moved to
have an independent examiner look at the $105.2 million in fees
paid to attorneys and other professional firms in the proceedings.

Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, Garrison Litigation Management
Group Ltd. and The Anchor Packing Co. are the three debtors who
filed for bankruptcy over four years ago because the large number
of asbestos suits they face.

The official committee of asbestos personal injury claimants, the
official committee of unsecured creditors and the future asbestos
claimants' representatives all have been authorized to engage
professional firms, leading to the accrual of $105.2 million in
fees.

"One thing that is clear is that Coltec's equity in these debtors
is being squandered," the company said in court papers.

Coltec is suggesting the appointment of W. Clarkson McDow Jr., a
former U.S. bankruptcy trustee for region four covering South
Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of
Columbia, to review fee applications and to control rising
administrative expenses.

"Fee examiners or fee review committees have been appointed in
numerous large, recent bankruptcy cases, such as those involving
Bethlehem Steel, Bradlees, Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, Lehman
Brothers, Collins & Aikman Corp., Exide, General Motors, Spansion
and the city of Detroit," Coltec said. "Fee examiners have
likewise been appointed in a number of asbestos Chapter 11 cases."

Coltec said it has been considering seeking a fee examiner in the
case for two years but it waited until after U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
George Hodges of the Western District of North Carolina determined
the liability Garlock owes to asbestos plaintiffs.  During the
proceedings held to estimate Garlock's liability, Hodges found
evidence of misrepresentation by plaintiffs' lawyers in several
cases that Garlock settled in the past or in which Garlock lost
jury verdicts. Hodges ruled that the history of verdicts and
settlements were "unreliable proxies when making an aggregate
estimate of the Debtors' actual liabilities," Coltec said.

The alleged evidence of misrepresentation led the judge to
estimate that Garlock likely owes $125 million to asbestos
plaintiffs, not around $1 billion to $1.3 billion as the
plaintiffs alleged.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Fibro Liability Doesn't Extend to Spouse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that a Pennsylvania
federal judge has ruled in a case against The Boeing Co. that
employers owe no duty to warn or protect the spouses of workers
who purportedly carried asbestos fibers home from their
workplaces, deciding an issue he said hadn't been addressed by
Pennsylvania appeals courts.

U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo C. Robreno ruled that plaintiff
Marilyn Gillen hadn't proven that Boeing knew or should have known
that her husband, whom Boeing employed as a machinist for some 35
years, was likely bringing asbestos home.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hove Firm Prosecuted After Flouting Fibro Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.K. Health and Safety Executive reported that a firm based in
Hove, England, has been fined after it flouted asbestos
regulations and removed some of the dangerous material just three
weeks after being refused a licence to carry out such work.

Asbestos Damage Limitations Ltd, trading as ADL, was prosecuted at
Brighton Magistrates' Court (28 Aug) for safety breaches following
the work undertaken at premises in Dyke Road, Hove, between 22 and
25 October 2013.

The case was brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
after investigating a complaint that an unlicensed contractor was
carrying out asbestos removal work.

The court was told that ADL had possessed a licence to remove
asbestos -- a known carcinogen -- but that this had expired in
September 2013.  The firm had applied for a renewal of the licence
and had been for a renewal interview with HSE on 1 October.
However this had resulted in an outright refusal based on
inadequate performance.

Asbestos Damage Limitations Ltd, Coleridge Street, Hove, East
Sussex, was fined GBP15,000 and ordered to pay GBP4,000 in costs
after admitting breaching Regulation 8(1) of the Control of
Asbestos Regulations 2012.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Denis Bodger said:

"ADL obviously decided to ignore the fact that its asbestos
licence had expired and also that the application to renew had
been refused. Instead it carried on regardless and went ahead with
work at the premises, removing a ceiling that contained asbestos
insulation board.

"When ADL's licence expired, the firm should have ceased to carry
out any work with asbestos-containing materials that is required
by licence.  ADL was fully aware of what types of activities are
covered and knew perfectly well that it was illegal to undertake
the work they did.

"Work with asbestos requires a high degree of regulatory control.
It involves working with a category one carcinogen, with asbestos-
related diseases causing some 4,500 deaths each year in the UK, as
well as many serious illnesses. When this type of work is
undertaken by an unlicensed company, HSE has no ability to ensure
it is done safely.

"Non-compliance with asbestos-licensing requirements is not
acceptable and HSE will continue to enforce the law to protect
both workers and members of the public."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Korean Village Choked Off by Fibro Mining
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeon Jin-sik, writing for The HanKyoreh, reported that Gangjeong
Village, site of recent protests against the building of a naval
base, is located on the coast of Jeju Island. Another village
called Gangjeong can be found in South Chungcheong Province, on
the foothills of Mt. Chilgap. This other Gangjeong is home to a
construction waste disposal site where an asbestos mine is
located. Now the by-products of the mining are eating away at the
livelihoods of residents -- yet the province, and the county of
Cheongyang, where the village is located, seem unwilling to deal
with problem. Fed-up villagers have responded by coming out daily
for protests wearing funeral clothes.

Kim Do-yeon, a 54-year-old resident of the village in the township
of Bibong and head of the local women's association, lost her
mother-in-law in 2007.

"She just wasted away slowly," Kim said. "She lost so much weight
she looked like a toothpick. She couldn't go a day without
painkillers, and at night she coughed so hard there was blood
coming out."

Even the hospitals she visited could not identify the exact
ailment. It was only four months before her death that Kim's
mother-in-law was diagnosed with mesothelioma by the Korea Cancer
Center Hospital in Seoul. The culprit was the "unseen killer":
asbestos, a Class 1 carcinogen.

"My stepmother worked for years in a field right next to the
intermediate construction waste processing site where the asbestos
mine was," Kim said. "My husband worked alongside her, and now
he's terrified every time he coughs up phlegm."

An aggregate crushing plant in an asbestos mine?

Gangjeong is the only place in the country where facilities that
generate particulate matter -- like an intermediate construction
waste processing site -- are located in an asbestos mine.
Residents of the village have gotten progressively sicker since
the company Bomin Environmental began operating its plant in 2001.
Lee Ki-tae, an 80-year-old resident, was diagnosed with Level 2
asbestosis in April 2011. Now even walking a few steps leaves him
feeling choked; he can't travel around the village without using a
motorbike. He does get some coverage for medicine at the free
clinic, but the journey takes so much out of him that he
essentially has no choice but to pay out of pocket for the drugs.

"My cough has been so bad that I've been taken away in an
ambulance a few times for coughing my sink full of blood," he
said.

Lee is among ten villagers so far who have been recognized by the
Korea Environment Corporation as suffering asbestos-related
damages. Five have died already.

The residents' findings on the asbestos damage situation from
their own investigation this year go far beyond what official
figures suggest. Gangjeong villagers went from house to house
interviewing 500 residents their village and nearby and found 35
deaths from lung cancer. The national average for patients
suffering asbestos-related ailments is around two out of every
100,000 people; there, the rate was more than 300 times higher.
Seventy-two-year-old Noh Hyeong-sik, a lifelong village resident
and general secretary of the local senior citizens' association,
suffers difficulties walking and breathing, yet he still has not
had his condition recognized as asbestos-related.
Village head Lee Tae-yeong, 65, was distraught.

"Each day of living is like dying," he said. "What does it say
when people are out there doing one-person demonstrations in
funeral clothes?"

A "prime example" of administration without responsibility

For over a decade after the factory opened, residents had no idea
of the dangers of asbestos. It was only when around 50 of them
attended an Aug. 25 debate on the village's asbestos and waste
problem organized by the South Chungcheong Provincial Office and
heard an explanation from Asian Citizens' Center for Environmental
Health chief Choi Ye-yong that they learned the substance was
present in the air they breathed in every day. "The county office
never said a word about it," said one of many angered residents at
the village center on Aug. 28.

Indeed, the actions taken by Cheongyang County have only fueled
the residents' anger. Lee Seok-hwa, the county chief, paid no
visits to the village during the recent campaign for the municipal
elections on June 4. Even in a tight election where every vote
counted, Gangjeong's 279 residents went ignored. After he won
election, Lee continued to ignore Gangjeong in his tours of the
county's various townships.

At the debate, deputy chief Jeong Song said a solution "could be
sought with the central government if residents work together" - a
response that was met with fierce objections from villagers. Jeong
is also a former environmental management officer with the county,
whose work was related to Bomin Environmental. The only
administrative actions taken against the company by the county
have been two suspensions and a few thousands of dollars in fines.

Also getting in the way of a resolution is the hands-off attitude
of South Chungcheong province and its governor Ahn Hee-jung. In
Dec. 2013, residents worked with civic groups to demand the
province conduct a resident audit, which was eventually carried
out in February by the provincial audit committee. But no drilling
samples were ever taken from the places where residents claimed
companies had illegally buried asbestos and waste. The entire
investigation lasted four days.

Residents said the lackluster performance further undercut the
province's boasting about being the first local government in the
country to set up its own independent audit committee. Angry with
what they saw as a perfunctory investigation, they petitioned Ahn
to issue a job performance order by the Local Autonomy Act
requiring Cheongyang County to take suitable action and conduct
appropriate guidance and inspections for "B" Environmental. The
order was issued, but the province ended up granting two
extensions for the county's reply, a process that lasted over five
months. It never attempted the vicarious administrative executive
prescribed in the Local Autonomy Act.

"If the county replies by Aug. 31, then we'll review the response
message after we receive their answer," said Kim Chan-bae, head of
the province's administrative team.

The urgent need for a plant shutdown and safe mine closure

Residents of Gangjeong began holding one-person demonstrations in
front of South Chungcheong Provincial Office and Cheongyang County
Office on July 7. Nearly two months later, they're still at it.
Well over a year has passed since they set up a guard post on a
hill beneath the plant in the spring of 2013 to monitor for
illegal waste burial.

"These are senior citizens who are busy with farming and are not
in the best of health," said Kwon Oh-bok, the 56-year-old head of
the residents' countermeasures committee. "They've organized teams
to sit at the guard post monitoring the plant from 7:30 in the
morning to 5 in the afternoon every day."

Residents and civic groups are demanding the immediate shutdown of
the plant, safe mine closure measures, and full-scale health
examinations for villagers. During the province's debate, Choi Ye-
yong singled out the "urgent need to revoke the company's permit,
close the mine safely, restore the environment, and monitor
resident health." On Aug. 29, a group of 150 residents and local
civic group members formed human chains around the provincial and
county offices to demand a solution.

"South Chungcheong Province and Cheongyang County are putting
business profits ahead of resident lives," said Lee Sang-seon,
head of the Cheongyang Citizens' Alliance. "They've made a mockery
of the resident audit request and the job performance order
system, and they've abandoned their own residents."

"As governor, Ahn Hee-jung has talked about being in favor of
administrative reforms," Lee continued. "How long is he going to
sit there and do nothing about these claims of collusion between
the company and the administrative agencies?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roofer Cited for Exposing Workers to Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Health & Safety reported that commercial roofer
Douglass Colony Group Inc. was cited for four repeat and seven
serious violations for failing to protect workers from exposure to
asbestos at a Denver work site. The Proposed penalties total
$81,000.

"Asbestos is a dangerous material that can potentially cause
lifelong, irreversible health problems if proper procedures are
not followed," said Herb Gibson, OSHA's area director in Denver,
in the statement. "OSHA's asbestos standard has a specific work
practice covering roofing operations that the employer failed to
follow, exposing workers to needless health hazards."

Three of the four repeat violations were cited for failure to
provide a competent supervisor to oversee the removal of asbestos-
containing material, conduct an asbestos exposure assessment and
provide adequate training for workers performing asbestos removal
duties. These violations come with a $45,000 penalty. The fourth
repeat violation was cited for failure to remove asbestos-
containing material properly to minimize potential release of
airborne asbestos; use mist-cutting machines appropriately; and
use ventilation for dust collection and proper containment and
transfer of asbestos-containing material.

Seven serious violations, with a penalty of #21,000, were cited
for failing to conduct asbestos removal work within a regulated
area; conduct daily air monitoring to determine employee exposure;
provide protective respiratory equipment and clothing; identify
and inform workers and others of the presence, quantity and
location of asbestos-containing material; and label waste
containers holding asbestos products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Protein A Critical Biomarker for Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Mesothelioma reported that an Italian research team says
they have identified a protein that may help quantify risk and
detect early mesothelioma in people who have been exposed to
asbestos.

Doctors from three Italian universities used the Luminex Multiplex
Panel Technology test to measure the serum levels of 47 different
chemicals, including a range of signaling proteins called
cytokines, in three groups of people. The groups tested were
workers previously exposed to asbestos, people with asbestos-
induced malignant mesothelioma, and healthy subjects.

In an article in the open-access online medical journal PLoS One,
the team reported that 25 different cytokines linked to pulmonary
inflammation and tumor development were higher in asbestos-exposed
workers and mesothelioma patients than they were in healthy test
subjects. In addition, tests revealed specific patterns of
cytokines in the asbestos workers and the mesothelioma patients
that were not present in health controls.

One specific cytokine, called RANTES, showed "an increased
gradient of concentration" that was lowest in healthy subjects,
higher in people who had been exposed to asbestos, and highest in
people with mesothelioma. RANTES plays an active role in
attracting white blood cells called leukocytes to sites in the
body where inflammation is present.

"This study shows that, in subjects from an hyperendemic area for
malignant mesothelioma, the C-C chemokine RANTES is associated
with the exposure to asbestos fibres," writes Manola Comar, MD, of
the Department of Medical Sciences at the University of Trieste in
Trieste, Italy. If the study can be verified in larger tests, Dr.
Comar says RANTES may offer a way to identify asbestos-exposed
workers who are at highest risk for mesothelioma or are in the
beginning stages of the disease.

Mesothelioma is an extremely deadly cancer, largely because it is
so difficult to detect early and there is no effective screening
test for it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Delays Fall River Demolition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Towne, writing for WPRI.com, reported that the demolition of
an arson-ridden home in Fall River, Massachusetts, has been put on
hold after a significant of asbestos was found inside.

Construction crews began tearing down the Bay Street abode, which
was the target of three separate arson fires in less than eight
months.  The asbestos cleanup not only forced a postponement of
the project, but it's also expected to triple the cost.

Mayor Will Flanagan said that he's authorized the extra cash to
complete the project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Needs to Be Removed in Clarion Hotel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Troy, writing for The Toledo Blade, reported that visible
demolition of the Clarion Hotel high-rise eyesore in South Toledo,
Ohio, should begin -- just in time to help stage the nearby former
Southwyck mall property for sale, city officials say.

Bill Burkett, commissioner of economic and business development,
said the deconstruction of the 10-story building could not begin
until the contractor finished eliminating contaminants --
everything from asbestos insulation to mercury in the thermostats
and batteries in the exit signs.

The final step, he said, was to remove water from the basement
that was used to store swimming pool chemicals.

"They're going to start on the one-story areas -- the pool,
banquet room, carport -- so they can get access to the remaining
tower from the outside," Mr. Burkett said. "I think it'll take
another four weeks to get it sorted out and bring everything to
the ground."

Mayor D. Michael Collins announced the beginning of demolition on
July 7, and his staff said the building would likely start to
disappear in a month, a deadline that passed three weeks ago. The
delay has prompted impatience on the part of council members who
asked for an update from the administration.

The building at 2340 S. Reynolds Rd. has stood empty since 2009
when previous owners Toledo Hotel Investment Group LLC defaulted
on $2 million in loans. The hotel has since caught fire, been
broken into, vandalized, and lived in illegally.

Toledo City Council voted unanimously June 17 to approve a
$434,000 bid by Homrich Inc. of Carleton, Mich., to tear the
building down.

City Council set aside $350,000 from the capital improvements fund
and obtained a $200,000 Brownfields grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to pay for the demolition.

Mr. Burkett said the site will either be covered in stone -- his
preference because it's less expensive -- or will be graded with
topsoil and seeded with grass.

Progress on the demolition comes as the Collins administration is
issuing a request for proposals to market the former Southwyck
Shopping Center site nearby on Reynolds Road.

Matt Sapara, the director of development, said a Request For
Proposals, known as RFPs, will be provided to the Toledo Regional
Growth Partnership to circulate to its networks of commercial
property developers.

The city is about one month into a four-month option to buy
Southwyck from its out-of-state owners. Just as real estate agents
"stage" a house for sale by making it look appealing, city
officials said removal of the dilapidated hotel is one less
obstacle to marketing Southwyck.

"It's significant. Anytime you drive anyone to the Southwyck site
you've got to go by the Clarion. So as you see more evidence of it
coming down and other investment made in that corridor it's a very
positive selling point for Southwyck," Mr. Sapara said.

Mr. Sapara said the RFP will offer the possibility of a public-
private partnership on Southwyck that could include an investment
by the city, if council agrees.

One model is the partnership between Mr. Sapara's previous
employer, the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, and builder-
developer Ed Harmon, Mr. Sapara said. The two split the risk on
building a new warehouse at Toledo Express Airport, which was then
quickly leased. Since then, the port authority and Mr. Harmon are
partnering on an additional "spec" building and on the former Jeep
assembly plant property in central Toledo.

"We could entertain that, absolutely, with council's blessing,"
Mr. Sapara said. He vowed that the administration would closely
scrutinize the background and qualifications of any potential
developer to make sure they have the financial capability and a
plan.

Mayor Collins on July 19 announced his administration had secured
a purchase option, paid for by an unidentified outside party, for
the former mall.

The 120-day purchase agreement allows the city, or a third party
backed by the city, to buy the 58-acre site for $3,000,209 from
the current owners, who are in Kansas and Texas.

The administration envisions corporate headquarters and retail.
The former enclosed shopping center closed in 2008 after operating
for 36 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Pleas for Info on Husband's Fibro Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Stacey, writing for Birmingham Mail, reported that a
heartbroken widow, whose husband was diagnosed with asbestos-
related cancer on their first wedding anniversary, is appealing
for information that could help understand his death.

Terry Hodges was diagnosed with terminal cancer just days before
jetting to Cyprus to celebrate his anniversary with wife Carole.

The 67-year-old was told the cancer was linked to the toxic
material after finding a lump on his chest in May 2011, and died a
year later.

Now Carole is searching for answers of how husband Terry, who
worked as a tool setter, could has been exposed to the deadly
material.

"It was very distressing" said Carole, from Great Barr. "We were
about to go to Cyprus to celebrate our first wedding anniversary
when we got the phone call from the hospital"

"We were stunned. I don't think Terry fully grasped what he was
being told."

"He kept saying that he was going to beat it. But it really sapped
his strength and he lost a lot of weight towards the end."

Now retired typist Carole is calling on anyone who worked with
Terry to help shed light how he came into contact with the deadly
asbestos.

"After his diagnosis he thought back about what might have caused
this illness" said Carole.

"He said that when he was a tool setter there used to be asbestos
in the ovens and it was also in the gloves he wore.

"It's upsetting to think that when Terry was going to work he was
in conditions which years later would cause him to die from this
awful illness."

She is hoping to trace former colleagues -- particularly people
who worked in Streetly Manufacturing on Aldridge Road, Streetly,
between 1962 and 1986 and Linpac Moulding between 1985 and 1991.

Carole's lawyer Kevin Johnson of Slater & Gordon said: "At a time
when they should have been celebrating their wedding anniversary,
they had to confront news that Terry was terminally ill because of
the actions of a former employer.

"We hope to hear from someone who can shed light on the working
conditions Terry faced during his career."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Death Widow to Sue Firm
----------------------------------------------
Somerset Standard reported that the widow of a welder who died
from an asbestos-related disease hopes to benefit from a
significant new court ruling.

Julien Lloyd, of Frome, whose husband Cliff developed mesothelioma
years after working at Port Talbot, Swansea, in England, and died
of the disease in 2012, is bringing a claim for compensation
against her late husband's employers with the help of Bath law
firm Withy King, despite him having agreed a "full and final
settlement" in the past.

A new court ruling, announced on August 15, means that victims of
industrial diseases who have settled their claims before the full
extent of their illness has been established, may now reapply to
the courts for further compensation.

Helen Childs who specializes in industrial diseases cases and is a
partner at Withy King, said: "The new ruling is very good news for
hundreds of families, including my client Mrs Lloyd and her
family.

"Her late husband's claim was handled by another firm of
solicitors who settled for full and final damages against three of
Mr Lloyd's previous employers just months before he developed
mesothelioma. A further significant employer was not included in
the settlement because they were not settling claims at the time.
"This could have been the end of the road for Mr Lloyds' family
but now thanks to the new ruling, we are hopeful of obtaining the
proper outcome and the right level of compensation.

"Thanks to this new ruling, families who have previously settled a
claim may now be entitled to further compensation -- if there are
employers who may be liable that were not pursued in the original
claim.

"I was always hopeful that clients who found themselves in this
situation could seek compensation from missing defendants if their
condition deteriorated, but this recent court ruling has confirmed
this."

Mr and Mrs Lloyd moved to Frome after he retired so they could be
closer to their family.

Speaking about her late husband, Mrs Lloyd said: "Cliff was a
footballer and could run and swim with the best of them. He did
his National Service and was a fit man until industry ruined him.

"He lost his hearing and then lost his life, all through working
in dreadful conditions. He was a hard worker, a grafter is the old
expression. He made toys for his children, nephews and then his
grandchildren.

"He had such plans for our retirement and he tried hard to do some
work on our bungalow, but the asbestosis was gradually smothering
the life from him. We only had five months in our new home before
he died. I know what I have lost, his companionship, his love, my
best pal and my gentle husband of 55 years, a father and
grandfather, we all miss him."

Millions of tonnes of asbestos were imported into the UK from the
1930s to the 1970s. It was widely used in construction.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Llanelli Man Fined After Throwing Fibro to River
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Llanelli Star reported that a man from Llanelli, in Wales, has
been ordered to pay over GBP350 after pleading guilty to throwing
asbestos sheets into a river.

Witnesses reported seeing the passenger of a 4x4 throwing asbestos
sheets into the River Morlais from a lay-by alongside the stone
bridge near Blaenhiraeth Farm in Llangennech on November 7, 2013.

A note was taken of the registration number and enquiries revealed
that Matthew Davies who lives at a property at Dwyfor, Llanelli,
was the passenger of the vehicle.

The 26-year-old entered a guilty plea to an offence contrary to
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 -- depositing
asbestos into the River Morlais.  He was fined GBP250 and ordered
to pay contribution towards prosecution costs of GBP100 and GBP20
victim surcharge at Carmarthen Magistrates Court.

Residents are being reminded that asbestos from their property can
be taken to recycling centres in the county.

Executive board member for Environmental and Public Protection,
councillor Jim Jones added: "There is no excuse for this type of
fly-tipping.

"All Household Waste Recycling Centres -- Nantycaws, Trostre,
Wernddu and Whitland (with exception to Llangadog), take asbestos
as long as it is double bagged."

Only three bags per household per annum are taken free of charge.

A disclaimer may also need to be filled in.

Nantycaws accept sheets of asbestos for a fee, which is set by
CWM.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Allays Fibro Fears Over Hounslow Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Cumber, writing for Get West London, reported that concerns
about asbestos at a demolition site in Hounslow, England, have
been allayed by a public watchdog.

Householders living beside Hounslow House, in London Road, were
concerned the highly toxic material was present in dust covering
their balconies and windowsills.

But the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) told getwestlondon:
"Asbestos present was removed under license prior to demolition
commencing and was completed last year."

The HSE had halted destruction at the site in July after the
partial collapse of an office block sent rubble crashing into
Hounslow bus garage next door.

But the watchdog allowed work to resume at the site a fortnight
ago after more stringent safety measures were put in place by GBM
UK, which is carrying out the work. The HSE is still investigating
the cause of the collapse.

Despite the new safety measures, residents say there is still too
little being done to prevent their properties being blanketed with
dust from the site.

Bernard Zieja, who lives in Aces Court, overlooking the work, said
there was so much dust people were reluctant to open their windows
or use their balconies.

"I think that the dust protection measures undertaken by GBM UK
are inadequate and we are not protected enough from the dust,"
said the photographer.

"I think we should be separated from the demolition site by a tall
scaffolding covered by protective curtains. I have seen this done
in central London and I wonder why this is not being bone here in
Hounslow."

A spokeswoman for the HSE said complaints about dust were a matter
for Hounslow Council, which has already warned GBM UK about
carrying out noisy work outside permitted hours.

getwestlondon has approached GBM UK for a comment but the firm has
yet to respond.

GBM UK is carrying out the demolition work for Tesco, which owns
the land and wants to build 267 homes there, including a 21-storey
residential tower.

The retail giant announced its proposals for the site earlier this
year but has yet to submit a planning application to the council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bristol Fibro Law Experts Join Irwin Mitchell
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Futures reported that the Bristol, England, office of law
firm Irwin Mitchell has expanded its industrial disease offering
across the south west with the appointment of a team of four legal
specialists as it seeks to further grow its market leading
practice.

Partner Virginia Chalmers, along with associate solicitor Isabelle
Selley, solicitor Leanne Leighton and litigation assistant Rachael
Wilson will join Irwin Mitchell's asbestos-related diseases team
from law firm Lyons Davidson.

Irwin Mitchell has also opened two new offices in Cambridge and
Southampton this year and completed the acquisition of MPH
Solicitors, adding a further 24 staff at the end of 2013.

Ms Chalmers, known as Ginny, initially qualified as a barrister
and solicitor in Ontario, Canada, before re-qualifying in England
and Wales in 1991. She established and has led the asbestos team
at Lyons Davidson for the past five years.

Ginny has built a committed and successful team specialising in
asbestos-related disease claims and says she looks forward to
bringing that expertise with her to Irwin Mitchell.

She says: "I am thrilled that my team and I are joining Irwin
Mitchell which is, in my view, the market leader in asbestos-
related disease claims. I have no doubt that our contacts and the
healthcare professionals with whom we work will be pleased to
benefit from the strength and depth available at Irwin Mitchell."

Associate solicitor Isabelle Selley qualified in 1994 after
reading Law at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. She
has specialised solely in asbestos litigation over the last eight
years.

Leanne Leighton joined Ginny's asbestos team as a newly qualified
solicitor in March 2014 and Rachael Wilson has spent over 10 years
working as a litigation assistant and is also secretary of Bristol
and Beyond Asbestos Family Support.

Stuart Henderson, managing partner of Irwin Mitchell's personal
injury department, said: "Irwin Mitchell has a market leading
national team of 48 asbestos lawyers and the recruitment of the
high profile partner Ginny Chalmers and her team in Bristol
strengthens our expertise and commitment to serving asbestos
victims across the country.

"As a firm we have long campaigned for the rights of asbestos
victims in ensuring they have fair access to justice. We have done
this through the work of our experienced, tenacious and empathetic
lawyers working tirelessly to achieve the justice their clients
deserve. Ginny and her team will be an asset in helping us to
continue providing this exceptional service."

Jonathan Peacock, Irwin Mitchell Bristol's regional managing
partner, added: "We are delighted to have a lawyer of Ginny's
calibre and experience join us to head up our asbestos team in
Bristol which will see three of her highly regarded team join us
too.

"Experienced lawyers can play a vital role in helping individuals
and their families gain answers about when and where they were
exposed to deadly asbestos dust, as the onset of symptoms can take
up to 50 years to develop from the point of exposure.

"The asbestos team at Irwin Mitchell works tirelessly to secure
justice for its clients and Ginny and her team share the firm's
values of putting clients first and delivering the highest
standard of service, ensuring they will be an asset to our
existing team."

Irwin Mitchell's Bristol office opened in 2010 based in offices in
Castlepark on Tower Hill in the city centre and as well as
asbestos litigation, has dedicated teams in medical negligence,
serious injury, family law, court of protection and public law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Roof Collapses on Patrons
------------------------------------------------
Nokuthaba Dlamini, writing for NewsDay, reported that about 16
patrons were lucky to escape death when an asbestos shed they were
sitting under collapsed on them at the Chinotimba Old Bar in
Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe.

One victim sustained a broken leg while others had minor injuries
including facial ones.

Relating his ordeal, Million Muleya (47), who suffered a broken
leg, said he was getting back into the bar after visiting the
toilet when he saw a person who looked like his friend sitting
under the shed and decided to go and check if it was him.

"As I was walking into the shed, suddenly a plank fell down and
hit me on the head.

"As I tried to run, nearly all the asbestos sheeting fell on me
and I fell down," he said.

"I cannot remember what happened after, but my drinking mates say
I lost consciousness and they rescued me under the asbestos and
planks. The next thing I remember was seeing myself in the
hospital bed with a broken leg and bruises all over my body and
face. My eye is very painful."

A 92-old-victim, who only identified himself as Ndebele, who
suffered back injuries, said the building was dilapidated and he
was not surprised that the asbestos roof sheeting collapsed.

Ndebele said he had fears that someone could have died as a result
of the accident.

"I started working for Victoria Falls Town Council when I was a
young man.

"I am one of those who helped in erecting this building in the
early 1940s and it has never been maintained," he said.

"The poles have never been changed and the asbestos sheets were
now too old.

"I was seated close to the door that is why I was not seriously
injured, but those that were inside couldn't escape.

" I was hit at the back and it is painful because I have a deep
cut.

"Since the accident occurred, council hasn't done anything to
check whether some someone did not die under the rubble because we
suspect someone might have been trapped under the huge asbestos
pile that still hasn't been removed."

The police officer commanding Victoria Falls district Chief
Superintendent Jairos Chiwona said they would work with council to
check if anyone could have been trapped under the collapsed
asbestos sheeting.

Meanwhile, a man lost an eye and another man lost three fingers
when the Toyota vehicle they were travelling in with two other
passengers rolled three times close to the Elephant Hills turn-
off.

Elisha Paradzai (52) told Southern Eye from his hospital bed that
the driver of the car could have been inebriated.

"We suspect the driver was drunk because the car was zigzagging
along the road and there were empty beer bottles inside," he said.

"Just before the accident, he lost control, but luckily managed to
immediately stop the car saying he needed a recess.

"Minutes later, he started increasing speed and we told him that
we wanted to drop off, but he did not stop but instead increased
speed resulting in him losing control.

"The car swung from one end to the other four times, but luckily
the road was clear.

"The next moment I woke up here in hospital. I was supposed to be
transferred to Bulawayo so that they remove the eye because it's
continuously bleeding."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Students Return to Fibro-Contamined School
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kent Pierce, writing for WTNH, reported that the first day of
school at the Peck Place School in Orange, Connecticut, looked
normal, but nothing has been normal about this school in the last
year.

In the record cold of January, pipes burst just inside the door,
flooding the school. Even worse, it uncovered asbestos around
pipes and in floor tiles.

"We did new ceilings, new lighting, new flooring," said Director
of Facilities Mike Luzzi. "There are new univents that are split
air conditioning and heat. There's a brand new roof structure on
this building."

While all that construction was going on, the kids needed
somewhere to go. Yale stepped up and invited the school to use its
West Campus -- formerly the Bayer Pharmaceuticals campus in West
Haven. The University even threw sixth graders an Ivy League-style
graduation in June.

Since then, crews spent the summer making sure the old building
would be ready for the first day of school.  In some classrooms,
they installed the shelves and counters just in the past few days,
meaning teachers had to really hustle to get their rooms ready.

"I think the students and the staff and the community have seen
that real work can be done when everyone works together," said
Peck Place School Principal Eric Carbone.

While the school is fully functional, there are a couple of things
the construction crews didn't quite finish. There is a full day of
school on Sept. 2, then the following days students will go home a
few hours early. That will give the construction folks time to
finish that list of things still left to do, what they call a
punch list. While the gym might still have piles of boxes on one
end, the lesson here is life if full of obstacles you have to
overcome.

"It's been an experience unlike any I've ever had," said Carbone.
"I'm still standing so I guess I'm stronger for it."

The school is stronger for it too. This is not the way anyone
would chose to do it, but the result is a complete school
renovation that the facilities manager says should be good for
another 20 years.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Can No Longer Be Dumped at Ipswich
---------------------------------------------------------
The Queensland Times reported that asbestos can no longer be
dumped at any of the waste centres in Ipswich, England, after the
potentially dangerous waste was banned from Riverview.

Ipswich City Council City infrastructure boss Cr Cheryl Bromage
said the change to the Riverview Recycling and Refuse Centre now
applied to domestic sources.

Cr Bromage said the council decided to stop accepting asbestos
from residents at Riverview because it was too dangerous to manage
at the site.

"Council is also concerned about the dangers to local residents
transporting asbestos themselves," she said.

"We feel that only licensed professionals should be handling,
transporting and disposing of asbestos materials given the extra
care which needs to be taken with these items."

Cr Bromage said the move would bring the Riverview centre into
line with the Rosewood Recycling and Refuse Centre as it was not
approved to accept asbestos waste from any sources.

"Alternative disposal options have been listed on council's
website to assist residents with the future disposal of asbestos,"
she said.

City Management and Finance Committee chairman Victor Attwood said
council also believed the State Government needed to mandate the
disposal of all asbestos by a registered provider.

"We have contacted the State Government to let them know our
thoughts on this matter and have asked them to take action to
protect all Queenslanders," Cr Attwood said.

"Asbestos is a material which needs to be handled with extreme
care and we feel that residents should not be handling it.

"We would like to see a compulsory change made to the way asbestos
is allowed to be handled in Queensland."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Want Answers on Fibro-Laced Waste
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
residents of Yarralumla, in Canberra, will meet to seek answers
from the ACT government on how it plans to safely move up to
14,400 tonnes of asbestos-contaminated waste from the Yarralumla
brickworks.

Resident Paul Flanagan feared the government was set to "dig and
dump", trucking the asbestos through the city, via Curtin and
Weston Creek to west Belconnen, creating the risk of airborne
asbestos. He estimated at least 700 truckloads would be generated.
Mr Flanagan said residents, 300 of whom had signed a petition
about the asbestos, wanted the site made safe, but they were
concerned the government was rushing the job without proper
consideration of the risks.

First, there should be a survey of just how far contamination
extended at the brickworks, given its 100-year industrial history,
he said. The area contained dangerous friable asbestos which could
easily become airborne, as well as bonded sheeting.

Residents were concerned about dust, and Mr Flanagan, who lives in
nearby Lane Poole Place, said air monitoring should extend to
residential areas. He questioned the plan to use a tarpaulin to
cover the waste on site, given the requirement that it must be
covered by 50 centimetres of soil as soon as it arrived at a dump
site, and up to three metres of soil for the longer term.
Asbestos experts Robsons Environmental prepared an action plan in
August, which said the asbestos dump covered almost half a hectare
and could be up to three metres deep.

First, the area would be cleared of vegetation, and tested to
check its extent and other contaminants. Depending what was found,
the material would be removed, with another 30 centimetres of
topsoil underneath also removed.

The action plan says dust should be carefully controlled, with
water used to keep dust down, tarpaulins used to provide wind
breaks and cover stock piles, no earthworks on dry and windy days,
limited vehicle movements, and monitoring to ensure there was no
visible dust. Areas should be revegetated as soon as possible to
limit dust. if those methods didn't control dust, other options
should be considered, including working during hours or on days
were there was minimal wind or when residents and other works were
not present, or tenting the work area.

Plastic sheeting should be used to cover visible asbestos. Air on
site would be monitored for asbestos.

Asbestos fibres must be in sealed, heavy-duty, impermeable bags,
clearly labelled as asbestos. Other asbestos waste must be in a
covered leak-proof vehicle and wetted.

But Mr Flanagan said insufficient work had been done to discover
the extent of contamination and whether removal was the best way
to deal with it. Western Australia's guidelines for asbestos
contaminated sites advised against the "dig and dump" approach for
such a large site, he said.

"In the search for development dollars, the cart has been put
before the horse, and community safety and the environment are
likely to suffer," he said. "One would have hoped that more
lessons would have been learnt following the Mr Fluffy
experience."

Robsons said it was unclear when the area first became a dump, but
in aerial photos it became apparent in the 1980s.

Mr Flanagan said the asbestos was believed to have come from a
building work at the brickworks site itself and the friable
asbestos from the inside of the big kiln doors, which were lined
with the material.

At the meeting, Robsons, government representatives and
contractors Capezio will answer residents' questions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plantiffs Fight v. Transparency Laws for Trusts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that as the deadline for unsealing the estimation record of the
Garlock Sealing Technologies bankruptcy proceeding draws nearer,
talks of asbestos trust transparency are on the rise. But three
asbestos plaintiffs' attorneys argue that many arguments in
support of transparency aren't quite what they seem, calling them
"nothing more than tort reform."

In an article with the Widener Law Journal titled "Clearing up the
False Premises Underlying the Push for Asbestos Trust
'Transparency,'" attorneys Bruce Mattock and Jason Shipp, of the
Goldberg, Persky & White law firm in Pittsburgh, and Andrew
Sackett, of the Caplin & Drysdale law firm in Washington, D.C.,
address why they believe transparency is unfair, unnecessary and
burdensome.

"What underlies the concept of 'transparency' is a
misunderstanding of the purpose and the operation of the asbestos
personal injury trusts," they wrote.

The group stated that the push for transparency is really just an
effort to switch the burden from the few remaining solvent
defendants involved in asbestos litigation to asbestos claimants.

They explain that the push for transparency began when Charles
Bates and Charles Mullins of Bates White Consulting suggested
"double-dipping" in a 2006 article. They claimed that claimants
could potentially collect awards for their injuries from solvent
defendants in the tort system and then from trusts.

"These two theories have developed into the principal
justifications for trust transparency - that claimants will be
collecting funds to which they are not entitled, and that solvent
defendants are paying funds that they should not have to pay," the
article states.

Regardless, the writers argue that transparency is unnecessary
because defendants already have access to the information they
need from asbestos trusts.

They explain that "many" jurisdictions already allow defendants
access to documents showing any trust claims a plaintiff has made
or will likely make. Because defendants know a plaintiff's
occupation and when and where the claimant worked, that should be
sufficient to establish that a plaintiff would be entitled to file
trust claims with numerous trusts.

"A defendant already has far more information about trust claims
than it has about settlements with either current or trust
predecessor co-defendants in the tort system," the article states.

As for specific transparency laws, the article first addresses the
current Congressional bill sitting in the Senate called the
Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act, or FACT Act. If
passed the bill would enact federal transparency laws stretching
across the nation in every jurisdiction.

The FACT Act would require asbestos trusts to release information
on those seeking compensation due to asbestos exposure in
quarterly reports.

The bill would require the quarterly reports to be made on the
court's public docket, specifically disclosing the names, exposure
history and basis for any payment from the trust of those who have
filed a claim with each trust.

The House passed the bill, H.R. 982, in a 221-199 vote on Nov. 13.
The bill remained on the party line as only five Democrats voted
for the Act.

Then in May, the Senate introduced its own version of the
transparency bill, officially titled S. 2319

They say that proponents of the FACT Act are wrong in believing
that reporting and disclosure requirements of the bill would not
place a burden on trusts.

The writers argue that providing exposure history and basis for
payment cannot simply be done by producing electronically
submitted claim forms, and may even require an analysis of a
claimant's medical history and exposure history.

The trusts believe that to figure out the required data, an
experienced claim reviewer would have to analyze the supporting
documents and prepare a special report, a task that would take
roughly 15 minutes. The writers added that it would take managers
and claims reviewers roughly 20,000 hours per year to comply with
the Act.

As a result, trusts would either have to hire extra staff to
prepare the special reports or take staff away from the task of
processing claims.

Furthermore, the authors argue that there is no evidence of
widespread fraud, which would provide a need for transparency,
despite the recent Garlock ruling and uncovered fraud in the
Kananian case.

On Jan. 10, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges, of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, found
Garlock's asbestos liability amounted to $125 million - roughly $1
billion less than what plaintiffs' representatives felt was
proper. He concluded that the amount of previous awards and
settlements paid by the gasket manufacturer in the tort system
were not reliable because plaintiffs' attorneys had withheld
exposure evidence in order to maximize recovery against solvent
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."

The fraudulent Kananian claims were discovered in the Knanian v.
Lorillard Tobacco case in January 2007 when Judge Harry Hanna of
the Court of the Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, issued an
order indicating Alan Brayton, senior partner and founder of
Brayton Purcell, committed "institutionalized fraud."

Those supporting the FACT Act use the Garlock ruling, the Kananian
mishap, and number of others, as proof of why transparency is
necessary to solve the problem.

However, those opposing transparency legislation disagree.

"There are major problems with this evidence of an epidemic of
fraud," the article states. "The 'evidence' consist of a few cases
in a system in which there are thousands of lawsuits filed yearly,
and tens of thousands of trust claims processed, and the
'evidence' is anecdotal, not statistical."

Some states have passed their own versions of asbestos trust
transparency laws.

The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council, WCJC, thanked Gov. Scott
Walker for providing fairness and transparency in asbestos
litigation

"We thank Gov. Walker for signing this landmark legislation into
law," stated Bill Smith, WCJC President and NFIB State Director.
"Wisconsin joins Ohio and Oklahoma in adding transparency in
asbestos lawsuits and protecting large and small businesses from
unscrupulous plaintiff attorneys who double-dip against asbestos
trust funds and Wisconsin businesses."

Ohio passed a similar bill called Ohio House Bill 380 in December
2012. Oklahoma followed suit with the Oklahoma Senate Bill 404 in
May 2013.

The writers also oppose these bills, saying they are anti-
plaintiff.

They state that the laws are "justified by their proponents
primarily on the grounds that asbestos personal injury trusts
should be paying more than they are."

On the other hand, the writers say the "legislation is blatantly
pro-defendant, with the goal of ensuring that 'solvent companies
do not unnecessarily absorb the liabilities of bankrupt entities
that are not subject to tort actions.

They believe the laws force plaintiffs to do the defendants' work
for them by providing evidence of exposure that will ultimately be
used against the claimant.

"By forcing the plaintiffs to work up trust claims and then
statutorily bringing those claims into court, the laws make
plaintiffs assist defendants in proving their case," the article
states. "That is, they have to create new 'evidence' which will be
used against them at trial."

The writers conclude that transparency laws will ensure that
asbestos claimants will receive compensation entirely from
asbestos personal injury trusts without awards from solvent
defendants in the tort system.


                              *********

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  * * *