CAR_Public/140912.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 12, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 182

                             Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Judge Trims Consolidated Data Breach Class Action
ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY: Faces "Conti" Employment Suit in California
AIRBNB INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Rent Hike
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Gets Favorable Ruling in 19 "Lights" Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set Yet for Aspinall Suit in Mass.

ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Brown" Appeals Cost Award to PM
ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial of "More Dangerous" Claim in "Larsen" Set
ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Certification of "Miner" to Ark. High Court
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Appeals Reversal of Cert. Order in "Pearson"
ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces Carroll Lawsuit as Lone Defendant

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Opposes Recusal Motion in "Price" Lawsuit
ALTRIA GROUP: Summary Judgment in Tobacco Price Case Affirmed
APPLE INC: "Breaking Bad"-Related Class Suit Can Move Forward
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Conspired to Manipulate ISDAfix, Fund Claims

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss CDS Conspiracy Claims
BANK OF NEW YORK: Discriminates Against Black Males, Suit Claims
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Matte" Suit Included in Gold Futures MDL
BASF CATALYSTS: Must Face Claims It Hid Evidence, 3rd Cir. Ruled
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Pesticides Caused Bee Deaths, Class Claims

BIEWER LUMBER: Faces "Stolzenburg" Class Suit in E.D. Missouri
BLOOMINGBURG, NY: Hasidic Jews Sue for Alleged Religious Bias
CALIFORNIA: Amendments to Deals in Medi-Cal Cases Approved
CHINA HOUSING: Accused of Being Taken Private at Unfair Price
DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Food Servers' Wage Suit Can't Proceed

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Bellwether Hip Replacement Trial Begins
DEL MONTE: Certification in Labeling Class Suit Denied
ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Move to Coordinate 27 Cymbalta Lawsuits
ENZYMOTEC LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.J.
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action

GAF MATERIALS: Accused of Selling Defective Cross Timbers Decking
GENERAL MILLS: "Kellogg" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey
GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Superfund Class Action
GOOGLE INC: To Settle FTC Unfair-Billing Charges for $19 Million
GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA: To Pay Women $475K to Settle Bias Claims

HOME DEPOT: Confirms Security Breach in U.S., Canadian Stores
HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Stored Communications Act Violations
INTERMOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
LEVIN FURNITURE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Sharp Chrome Defect Tossed

MERCK & CO: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: "Cutrone" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
NASHVILLE, TN: Discovery in 41-Year-Old Class Suit Must Proceed
NATIONAL HOCKEY: "Fritsche" Trauma Suit Transferred to Minnesota
NATIONAL OILWELL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
OVASCIENCE INC: Plaintiffs Re-Filed Shareholder Class Action
PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Opioid Painkillers
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Mental Health Care Suit Can Proceed
TOWER GROUP: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Discontinued

TOWER GROUP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Translator in Acceleration Suit Faces Sanctions
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Reverses Prior Ruling in Drivers Suit
VERDASYS INC: October 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WEBECO FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims

* Philly Favorable for Medical Malpractice Suits, Court Data Says


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $11-Mil. Garvin Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Appeal in "DeLisle" Suit Is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $25MM Verdict Entered Against Crane in NY Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolved 103,000 Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $659-Mil. Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Has 2,225 Individual PI Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. 3M Co. Remains Pending in West Virginia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Had $129MM Accruals for Fibro Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Estimates $24-Mil. Aearo Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 2,300 Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Estimates Fibro Liability at $253MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,087 PI Cases as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 17,500 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarners's Appeal in PI Suit Remains Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace To Pay $632-Mil. to End PI Trust Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Continue to Defend PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Has 6,900 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc.'s Maremont Had 5,800 Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has 2,800 Rockwell Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend Take-Home Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 65,000 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $443-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $408MM Insurance Receivables

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had 21,000 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Unit Had $333MM Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Had $77MM Fibro Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Rule on Suit by Family
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Allows Plaintiff to Amend Complaint

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rule 5(c)(1)(B) Motion in PI Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Dropped as Defendant in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duro Dyne's Bid to Junk "Proctor" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendant in 2 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Smith" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "Spells" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Burkhart" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Claims in "Lockett" Suit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Summary Judgment in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Renfrow" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Ronquille" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in "Tucker" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Remands Class Suit v. BASF, Law Firm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Owed No Duty to Warn Ex-Worker's Wife


                            *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Judge Trims Consolidated Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Sindhu Sundar and Beth Winegarner, writing for
Law360, report that a California federal judge on Sept. 4 trimmed
a consolidated class action accusing Adobe Systems Inc. of not
protecting users' private information when hackers stole 3 million
credit and debit card records, although she refused to dismiss the
suit entirely.

U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh partially granted Adobe's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief under the
Customer Records Act, ruling that because they didn't claim to
have suffered any incremental harm resulting from Adobe's alleged
delay in notifying customers of the 2013 data breach, they hadn't
linked any injury to Adobe.

However, the judge dismissed the claim without prejudice, noting
that "to require plaintiffs to wait until they actually suffer
identity theft or credit card fraud in order to have standing
would run counter to the well-established principle that harm need
not have already occurred or be 'literally certain' in order to
constitute injury-in-fact."

Judge Koh also dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' request for
injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law in
regards to two plaintiffs who bought licensed products directly
from Adobe.  She said they hadn't alleged that they spent more
money on such products than they would have had they known the
company wasn't providing a reasonable level of security.

But the judge additionally ruled that the four other named
plaintiffs, who subscribed to Adobe's products, had plausibly
alleged that they relied to their detriment on Adobe's
representations that the products were secure, and thus allowed
their UCL injunction claim to go forward.  She also denied Adobe's
motion to dismiss a claim for declaratory relief and a UCL
restitution claim.

The suit, filed by customers of Adobe licensed products or
Creative Cloud subscribers who provided Adobe with their personal
information, took aim at Adobe's Oct. 3 disclosure that it didn't
use proper security measures to guard sensitive personal
information that also included users' email addresses and
passwords.

The suit also claimed that Adobe's original notice about the
hacking lowballed the estimate of how many users were affected,
and that the company later revealed on Oct. 29 that the breach was
much bigger than it had originally stated, with closer to 38
million Adobe users affected.

Adobe had argued that an increased risk of future harm as a result
of the 2013 data breach isn't a cognizable injury for Article III
standing purposes, but Judge Koh ruled on Thursday that
plaintiffs' allegations of a concrete and imminent threat of
future harm sufficiently established such standing at the
pleadings stage.

While Adobe had also claimed that its privacy policy stipulates
that no security measure is fully effective and that the company
can't guarantee the security of personal information, the judge
found enough evidence showing a dispute over the meaning and scope
of Adobe's contractual obligation to provide reasonable security
measures.  She thus allowed plaintiffs' claim seeking a
declaration that Adobe's existing security measures don't comply
with its contractual obligations.

The judge also let stand plaintiffs' claim for restitution, in the
form of unspecified equitable relief, on behalf of individuals who
bought Adobe products including ColdFusion, a platform for
developing Java-based Internet applications whose source code was
copied by hackers.  She ruled the company had a duty to disclose
that its security practices were not on par with industry
standards.

Judge Koh gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file a second amended
complaint curing the deficiencies she identified in the
Sept. 4 order.

Eric H. Gibbs -- ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs LLP, which
is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Sept. 5 that they
"think this is an important case, so we very much appreciate the
court's hard work and look forward to prosecuting our clients'
claims."

Plaintiffs are represented by Eric H. Gibbs and Matthew B. George
-- mbg@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs LLP.

Adobe is represented by Kenneth l. Chernof --
Kenneth.Chernof@aporter.com -- Ronald D. Lee --
Ronald.Lee@aporter.com -- Tracy T. Lane and Rachel l. Chanin --
Rachel.Chanin@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP.

The case is In re: Adobe Systems Inc. Privacy Litigation, case
number 5:13-cv-05226, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


ADOPT-A-HIGHWAY: Faces "Conti" Employment Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Conti v. Adopt-A-Highway Maintenance Corporation, Case No.
30-2014-00742881-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.,
August 29, 2014) arises from employment-related issues.

According to Courthouse News Service, the Adopt-a-Highway
Maintenance Corp. stiffs workers for overtime and violates other
labor laws, citing a class action.


AIRBNB INC: Faces Class Action in California Over Rent Hike
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report
that Airbnb Inc. was hit in California court on Sept. 3 with a
proposed class action representing thousands of renters in San
Francisco, claiming the room-finder website is driving up rents
and making it tough for property owners to compete in the city's
fierce rental market.

The lawsuit, filed by two long-term tenants of a San Francisco
residential hotel, accuses Airbnb of flouting city laws that
forbid the rental of residential units for "tourist or transient
use."  Airbnb's site even mentions those laws but continues to
offer rentals in San Francisco, according to Louis Gamache and
Danielle McGee's complaint.

By offering San Francisco apartments as hotel rooms, Airbnb is
taking those units off the long-term rental market in a city
already short of housing, according to the complaint.

"The conversion of residential units into short-term rentals, used
primarily by tourists, has removed rent controlled apartments from
use and caused residential rents in San Francisco to rise because
so many residential units are no longer available to long-term
tenants," the complaint said.

An estimated 5,000 San Francisco apartments are available for
"illegal short-term rental," the complaint said.  Mr. Gamache and
Ms. McGee believe that the affected class of tenants in San
Francisco could number in the thousands.

Both plaintiffs live in San Francisco's Sheldon Hotel, a long-term
residential hotel where Airbnb also rents units to tourists. That
activity affects at least 300 residents in the Sheldon alone, the
complaint said.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages and an
injunction barring Airbnb from renting San Francisco apartments
illegally.

The complaint accuses Airbnb of violating California's unfair
competition law by illegally converting residential units for
tourist use, which allegedly makes it more difficult for other
property owners to compete.  It also accuses the site of violating
San Francisco's residential hotel conversion and demolition
ordinance and its residential unit conversion and demolition
ordinance.

"We believe this is the first lawsuit ever on this important
issue," plaintiffs' attorney Tyson Redenbarger of Hooshmand Law
Group told Law360.  "Airbnb is facilitating the short-term rental
of rent-controlled units, thereby preventing the rental of those
units to long-term tenants.  This lawsuit will hopefully correct
this issue and make available more units for long-term rental."

The same day the lawsuit was filed, San Francisco Board of
Supervisors President David Chiu introduced changes to proposed
legislation that would regulate users of Airbnb and other home-
sharing sites.

The amended version of the legislation incorporates several
recommendations made by the city's planning commission last month,
including regulating single-family homes and strengthening
enforcement, among other changes, according to a statement by
Mr. Chiu.  The changes were incorporated ahead of a Land Use
Committee meeting on Sept. 15, where the proposal will again be
considered.

Currently, using home-sharing sites like Airbnb and VRBO is
illegal under San Francisco rules unless the property is
registered as an inn or bed and breakfast.  Mr. Chiu's proposal
looks to amend short-term rental rules to allow for the regulated
use of home-sharing sites while still prohibiting the
"hotelization" of residential housing.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark Hooshmand and Tyson
Redenbarger of the Hooshmand Law Group.

The case is Louis Gamache et al vs. Airbnb Inc. et al, case number
CGC14541477, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Gets Favorable Ruling in 19 "Lights" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified
class in the Price case. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action
brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the grounds that
plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a decision
by a New York trial court in Schwab that granted plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S.
residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were
labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab
voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio
Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and
Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the
Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for
interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case
that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to
certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the
Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal
district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM
USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in
May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's
entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this
litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date Set Yet for Aspinall Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set for the certified class action
Aspinall, filed against Philip Morris USA Inc. in Massachusetts,
according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2014.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases
include:

Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial
court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying
summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-
motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In
March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February
2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed
without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM
USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the
case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the
Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of
remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior
Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot
obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that
their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class
member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25.
Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its
February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for
review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs
petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the
ruling, which the appellate court denied. No trial date has been
set.


ALTRIA GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Brown" Appeals Cost Award to PM
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the Brown lawsuit against Philip Morris USA Inc. is
appealing the cost award of $764,553 to PM USA, according to
Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases
include:

Brown: In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state
court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM
USA and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful
and fraudulent business practices.  In May 2009, the California
Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court.
At that time, the class consisted of individuals who, at the time
they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or
more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or
advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild,"
"low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including
any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases
"ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to
defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California.
Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of
"light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and
injunctive relief ordering corrective communications. In September
2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court dismissed all
defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit.  Trial began in April
2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the class to include
California residents who smoked in California one or more of
defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January 1, 1998 and
April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's marketing and
advertising activities in California. In June 2013, PM USA filed a
motion to decertify the class. Trial concluded in July 2013. In
September 2013, the court issued a final Statement of Decision, in
which the court found that PM USA violated California law, but
that plaintiffs had not established a basis for relief. On this
basis, the court granted judgment for PM USA. The court also
denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class. In October 2013,
the court entered final judgment in favor of PM USA. In November
2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the court denied. In
December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA
filed a conditional cross-appeal. In February 2014, the trial
court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs. Also in February 2014,
plaintiffs appealed the costs award.


ALTRIA GROUP: Re-Trial of "More Dangerous" Claim in "Larsen" Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial court handling the Larsen suit against Philip Morris USA
Inc. has set alternative dates for a re-trial of plaintiffs' "more
dangerous" claim in 2005, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July
22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases
include:

Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the
class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class. The class period remains 1995 - 2003. In June 2010, PM
USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs
moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability
in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the
case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion
was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various
summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In
August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial
summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a
damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more
dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's
remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in
September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial
after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the
trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary
judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed
plaintiffs to pursue that claim. The trial court has set
alternative dates for the re-trial, with one possible date being
January 20, 2015 and the other being March 16, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Appeals Certification of "Miner" to Ark. High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. is appealing the class certification ruling
in Miner suit to the Arkansas Supreme Court, according to Altria
Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases
include:

Miner: In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the
lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that
denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as
opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected
defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal
court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the
case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and
transferred to the MDL proceeding. In November 2010, the district
court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state
court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March
2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November
2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified
class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971
through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including
Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas. PM
USA filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to
the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Appeals Reversal of Cert. Order in "Pearson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. is appealing the reversal of an order that
denied class certification to the Pearson suit filed against it in
Oregon, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2014.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases
include:

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April 2010. In June
2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
denial of class certification and remanded to the trial court for
further consideration of class certification. In July 2013, PM USA
filed a petition for reconsideration with the Oregon Court of
Appeals, which was denied in August 2013. PM USA filed its
petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court in October 2013,
which the court accepted in January 2014. Oral argument occurred
on June 23, 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces Carroll Lawsuit as Lone Defendant
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. is now the sole defendant in the Carroll
case (formerly known as Holmes) pending in Delaware, according to
Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2014.

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases
include:

In December 2009, the state trial court in Carroll (formerly known
as Holmes) (pending in Delaware) denied PM USA's motion for
summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act. In January 2011, the trial court allowed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting class
representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and PMI as
additional defendants. In July 2011, the parties stipulated to the
dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI. In
February 2013, the trial court approved the parties' stipulation
to the dismissal without prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI,
leaving PM USA as the sole defendant in the case.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Opposes Recusal Motion in "Price" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA Inc. is opposing a motion seeking recusal of
Justice Karmeier, one of the Illinois Supreme Court justices, in
the Price suit, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

Trial in Price commenced in state court in Illinois in January
2003 and, in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff
class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3.0
billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In December 2005, the
Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United States
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari
and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County
enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed the
case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate." PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed. In
March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. In
February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review. As a result,
the case was returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended
petition, which PM USA opposed. Subsequently, in responding to PM
USA's opposition to the amended petition, plaintiffs asked the
trial court to reinstate the original judgment.  The trial court
denied plaintiffs' petition in December 2012. In January 2013,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial
District. In January 2013, PM USA filed a motion asking the
Illinois Supreme Court to immediately exercise its jurisdiction
over the appeal. In February 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court
denied PM USA's motion. Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal to the
Fifth Judicial District was heard in October 2013. On April 29,
2014, the Fifth Judicial District reversed and ordered
reinstatement of the original $10.1 billion trial court judgment
against PM USA. On May 12, 2014, PM USA filed in the Illinois
Supreme Court a petition for a supervisory order and a petition
for leave to appeal. The filing of the petition for leave to
appeal automatically stayed the Fifth District's mandate pending
disposition by the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 28, 2014,
plaintiff filed a motion seeking recusal of Justice Karmeier, one
of the Illinois Supreme Court justices, which PM USA opposed.


ALTRIA GROUP: Summary Judgment in Tobacco Price Case Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kansas affirmed the entry of summary
judgment in favor of defendants in the (Smith) suit filed against
Philip Morris USA Inc., according to Altria Group, Inc.'s July 22,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

One case remains pending in Kansas (Smith) in which plaintiffs
allege that defendants, including PM USA and Altria Group, Inc.,
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted. In March
2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs sought the trial court's reconsideration of
its decision, but in June 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision,
and defendants have cross-appealed the trial court's class
certification decision, to the Court of Appeals of Kansas. On July
18, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary
judgment in favor of defendants.


APPLE INC: "Breaking Bad"-Related Class Suit Can Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Breaking Bad" fans can move forward with a class action over the
way Apple sold the show's final season on iTunes, reports
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Apple sold customers a "Season Pass" on iTunes for the final
season of the hit AMC show, which was advertised as including all
current and future episodes of Season 5.  The alleged one-time
cost was $21.99 for high definition and $13.99 for standard
definition, lead plaintiff Noam Lazebnik said in the lawsuit.

Apple nevertheless then decided to break up the last season in
half and charged customers who had already purchased the season
pass another $22.99 or $14.99 for access to the second half,
Lazebnik said.

Lazebnik's son-in-law, Jeremy Tor, contacted Apple to complain
that Lazebnik should not have to pay more money for access to the
second half of Season 5.  Apple allegedly informed Tor that it
considered the second half Season 5 to be a different season and
that Lazebnik would have to pay if he wanted to watch the
remaining episodes.

Lazebnik's lawsuit against Apple alleges breach of contract and
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and
Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Apple sought to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, noting
that it was Tor, not Lazebnik, who completed the transaction of
purchasing "Breaking Bad" on iTunes using Lazebnik's credit card.
It was also Tor, not Lazebnik, who read and relied upon the
company's alleged misrepresentations regarding the Season Pass,
the company said.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Davila rejected Apple's motion on
Aug. 29, finding it reasonable to infer that Lazebnik gave Tor
permission to use his credit card, particularly considering the
fact that the complaint states that Tor related Apple's statements
regarding the Season Pass to Lazebnik prior to the purchase.

Whether Lazebnik was actually "exposed" to any statements made by
Apple "appears to be a question of fact not suitable for
adjudication at this stage of litigation," the ruling states.

"A jury could reasonably find that defendant had reason to expect
that its representations would be transmitted to others,
particularly in the case of statements made to a wide audience
such as iTunes users," Davila added.

In a partial victory for Apple, Davila did dismissed Lazebnik's
contract and CLRMA claims.

Although Lazebnik said his credit card was used to purchase the
Season Pass, he did not produce any evidence of a contract.

The CLMRA claim fails because the Season Pass is either software
or a license, but not a "tangible chattel" or "good" within the
meaning of the act.

Lazebnik's UCL claim will advance, however, despite Apple's
contention that Lazebnik did not allege that Apple made any
explicit promises that purchasers of the Season 5 Season Pass
would be entitled to "all 16 episodes" of the season.

Apple also argued that a reasonable consumer would not believe
that he would receive 16 episodes for the price of $21.99.

Davila pointed out that Apple's advertisement for the Season Pass
did not include any explicit statement that consumers would only
be provided with eight episodes rather than 16.  It advertised it
as "every episode in [Season 5] and at a better price than if you
were to purchase it one at a time."

"Furthermore, the complaint cites a number of examples of consumer
complaints posted on a discussion board on defendant's website in
which consumers appear to have believed their Season Pass purchase
would include all 16 episodes of Season 5," Davila wrote.

Davila also rejected Apple's argument that it was AMC that chose
to market the last 16 episodes of Breaking Bad as Season 5 and
thus should be responsible for Lazebnik's injury.

"The test is whether defendant's representations were likely to
deceive a reasonable consumer. Whether the likelihood of deception
arose because of AMC's conduct or defendant's conduct is not
relevant to this inquiry," Davila wrote.

The case is Dr. Noam Lazebnik, M.D., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:13-CV-04145-
EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division.


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Salam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., a Wisconsin
corporation, and Ashley Homestores, Ltd., a Wisconsin limited
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-06937 (N.D. Ill., September 8, 2014)
alleges that in an effort to market their products and services,
the Defendants sent unsolicited text messages to the wireless
telephones of the Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class
without prior express written consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ashley Furniture is a Wisconsin corporation headquartered in
Arcadia, Wisconsin.  Ashley Homestores is a Wisconsin limited
company also headquartered in Arcadia.  Ashley Furniture is the
largest manufacturer of furniture in the world, with manufacturing
and distribution facilities in Wisconsin, Mississippi, California,
Pennsylvania, Florida, China, and Vietnam.  Ashley Furniture sells
its products primarily through Ashley Homestores' approximately
500 retail furniture locations, which are owned and operated by
licensees in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America,
and Japan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Conspired to Manipulate ISDAfix, Fund Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation; Barclays Bank
PLC; BNP Paribas SA; Citigroup Inc.; Credit Suisse AG; Deutsche
Bank AG; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Bank PLC; ICAP PLC; J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co.; Nomura Holdings Inc.; Royal Bank of Scotland
PLC; UBS AG; and Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 1:14-cv-07126-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants
conspired to manipulate ISDAfix.

The "ISDAfix" benchmark rate is one of the more important
benchmarks in the U.S. financial system.  ISDAfix is a key
interest rate for a broad range of interest rate derivatives and
other financial instruments.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Banks entered into an
overarching agreement that, when any subset of banks faced
particular exposure to the settlement of an ISDAfix-linked
transaction on a certain day, the other banks and ICAP would help
manipulate USD ISDAfix rates to a level that would help that
subset of banks (while hurting their customers).  The Plaintiff
argues that the Defendants' manipulation of ISDAfix -- even if
sometimes only by a few basis points -- impacted trillions of
dollars of financial instruments.

Alaska Electrical Pension Fund is a pension fund that transacted
with one or more Defendant Banks in interest rate derivatives that
were tied to or directly affected by ISDAfix.

Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.  During the Class
Period, Bank of America and the other Defendant Banks were
allegedly involved in and contributed to the setting of the
ISDAfix rate, and transacted in interest rate derivatives with
members of the proposed class.

ICAP PLC is a company organized under English law, with its
principal place of business in London, England, and a branch
location in Jersey City, New Jersey.  During the Class Period and
until January 26, 2014, ICAP served as the administrator for the
setting of the USD ISDAfix rate and as a broker for billions, if
not trillions, of dollars of interest rate derivative
transactions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          Daniel Cunningham, Esq.
          Marc L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Steig D. Olson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010-1601
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
                  danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com
                  marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Patrick Coughlin, Esq.
          David Mitchell, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  davidm@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Sylvia M. Sokol, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Ave, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174-4099
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  ssokol@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
          Ronald J. Aronoff, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com
                  Aranoff@bernlieb.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Refuses to Dismiss CDS Conspiracy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan faced heavy opposition in its bid to
lead a multibillion-dollar class action accusing a dozen major
investment banks of manipulating the market for credit default
swaps.  Not only were other plaintiffs lawyers vying to spearhead
the case, but Simpson Thacher & Bartlett attempted to disqualify
the firm over alleged conflicts.

As The Litigation Daily reported, Quinn Emanuel emerged victorious
from the scrum late last year when a judge in Manhattan appointed
the firm lead counsel.  Now partner Daniel Brockett and his
cocounsel at Pearson, Simon & Warshaw have proven their mettle in
an early standoff with the defendants.

In a 49-page decision issued on Sept. 4, U.S. District Judge
Denise Cote refused to dismiss allegations that the banks secretly
conspired to keep a stranglehold on the CDS market, thwarting
ventures to increase price transparency and costing billions of
dollars to institutional investors that purchased and traded swaps
between fall 2008 and the end of last year.  Judge Cote green-
lighted claims that the banks violated state unjust enrichment
laws and Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  She agreed to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
however, and she tossed damages claims related to CDS sales in
early 2008.

The ruling also applies to two alleged coconspirators: the
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, a financial trade
association for derivatives dealers, and Markit Group Holdings
Ltd., a private price data provider responsible for key CDS
indexes.

Among other things, the defendants argued in their motions to
dismiss that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing, that the
Dodd-Frank Act blocks antitrust claims related to conduct after
July 2011, and that their actions could be explained as rational,
noncollusive responses to the pressures of the financial crisis.

Judge Cote rejected each of those defenses in turn on Sept. 4.
"The financial crisis hardly explains the alleged secret meetings
and coordinated actions" among the defendants, she wrote.

Quinn Emanuel's Brockett said he was "gratified" by the ruling and
looking forward to discovery, where the plaintiffs will be able to
piggyback on a parallel, ongoing European regulatory matter.
"It's an important victory," said Mr. Brockett, adding that the
surviving Sherman Act claim had always been the core of the case.

The roster of defense firms listed on the Sept. 4 decision runs to
five pages and features some of Wall Street's most formidable
advocates.  The lineup includes: Davis Polk & Wardwell (for Bank
of America Corporation); Allen & Overy (for Barclays Bank Plc and
BNP Paribas); Sidley Austin (for Citigroup Inc.); Hogan Lovells
(for Credit Suisse AG); Jones Day (for Deutsche Bank AG); Sullivan
& Cromwell and Winston & Strawn (for Goldman Sachs & Co.); Mayer
Brown (for HSBC Bank Plc); Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
(for JPMorgan Chase & Co.); Cravath, Swaine & Moore (for Morgan
Stanley & Co.); Katten Muchin Rosenman (for UBS AG); Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft (for Royal Bank of Scotland NV); Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett (for ISDA); and Proskauer Rose (for Markit).


BANK OF NEW YORK: Discriminates Against Black Males, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Thomas v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and
Stephen Rehm, Case No. 1:14-cv-07229-KBF (S.D.N.Y., September 8,
2014) alleges that BNY Mellon treats African American/black males
and particularly the Plaintiff differently, less favorably,
unfairly, disparately and disproportionately to similarly situated
Caucasian/white males by terminating black males, who have been
given a work performance improvement plan ("PIP") and not
terminating white males, who have been given a PIP.

Jeffrey Thomas is a male black of African-American descent and a
resident of New York County, state of New York.

The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a financial services
and bank holding company that provides financial services to
corporations, institutions and private clients.  BNY Mellon is a
wholly owned subsidiary of BNY Mellon Corporation.  Stephen Rehm,
a male Caucasian/white, was one of the managers in the Broker
Dealer Outsourcing Department of the Bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory G. Smith, Esq.
          GREGORY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
          225 Broadway, Suite 3601
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 267-2042
          Facsimile: (212) 267-2048
          E-mail: gsmith225@aol.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Matte" Suit Included in Gold Futures MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Matte v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02541, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07235-VEC
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the litigation captioned In Re:
Commodity Exchange, Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading
Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02548-VEC.

The antitrust litigation arises from allegations that the
Defendant Banks conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and
gold derivatives through their ownership and control of the London
Gold Market Fixing Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS, L.L.C.
          Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com


BASF CATALYSTS: Must Face Claims It Hid Evidence, 3rd Cir. Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
BASF Catalysts and its attorneys must face claims that they
fraudulently concealed evidence that the company's talc products
contained asbestos, forcing many asbestos victims to dismiss or
settle their tort claims, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse
News Service, citing a 3rd Circuit ruling.

BASF Catalysts is successor to Engelhard Corp., which made talc
products containing asbestos.  When Engelhard discovered the
asbestos, rather than face the consequences, it enlisted the
services of law firm Cahill, Gordon & Reindel to collect the tests
and reports proving the presence of asbestos in Engelhard talc and
destroy or hide them, according to the court's summary.

Then, when victims brought tort actions against Engelhard for
asbestos exposure, the company defended itself by asserting that
no tests had ever affirmed that its talc contained asbestos.

The scheme collapsed in a recent lawsuit when a former research
chemist for Engelhard testified that he had discovered asbestos in
the company's talc many years ago, and had been instructed to turn
over all of his talc-related records.

This testimony triggered discovery of potentially concealed
documents, of which many were found kept secretly in a Cahill
storage facility.

Plaintiffs, primarily relatives of victims who died of asbestos-
related diseases, say the scheme outlived most of the people
exposed to Engelhard's asbestos, and robbed victims of a fair
judgment on their claims.

They seek a declaration that BASF and Cahill committed fraud, and
an injunction against the defendants' future invocation of res
judicata based on past state court judgments.

A federal judge found entirely for the defendants, but the 3rd
Circuit revived plaintiffs' fraud claims on September 3, 2014.

"We conclude that the District Court erred when it dismissed the
fraud and fraudulent concealment claims.  The amended class action
complaint properly alleges the elements of fraud and fraudulent
concealment -- namely that BASF and Cahill lied about and
destroyed the asbestos evidence to plaintiffs' detriment.  Neither
the New Jersey litigation privilege nor pleading requirements
stand in the way of these claims," Judge Julio Fuentes wrote for
the three-judge panel.

While plaintiffs may not have believed defendants' assertions that
the product did not contain asbestos, there is no doubt that their
cases "would have been much stronger if [they] had evidence that
BASF's products contained asbestos," and would have saved
significant litigation expenses by having that evidence, the court
found.

Fuentes also reinstated the plaintiffs' requests for injunctive
and declarative relief, dismissing defendants' arguments that
injunctive relief would violate the Anti-Injunction Act.

However, the court found it premature to make a ruling on any
particular legal defense that defendants might make if plaintiffs
seek to reopen state cases.

"Although the parties certainly have adverse interests on these
matters, an injunction or declaration about future legal defenses
[such as res judicata] would not provide a conclusive resolution
of an existing controversy. The issues are, therefore, unripe,"
Fuentes wrote.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Michael Coren, Esq,
          Harry M. Roth, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          2001 Market Street
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-3500
          Toll Free: (888) 375-7600
          Facsimile: (215) 567-6019
          E-mail: HRoth@cprlaw.com
                  mcoren@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          127 Maple Avenue
          Red Bank, N.J. 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-9003
          Toll Free: (888) 375-7600
          Facsimile: (732) 747-9004
          E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          Princeton Pike Corp. Center
          997 Lennox Drive
          Princeton Pike Corporate Center, Building 3
          Lawrenceville, N.J. 08648
          Telephone: (609) 896-3600
          Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
          E-mail: jmpollock@foxrothschild.com

Appellee BASF Catalysts LLC is represented by:

          Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq.
          David C. Kistler, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          301 Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 750-7700
          Facsimile: (609) 750-7701
          E-mail: Orlofsky@BlankRome.com
                  Kistler@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Eugene F. Assaf, Esq.
          Daniel A. Bress, Esq.
          Peter A. Farrell, Esq.
          Michael F. Williams, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: eugene.assaf@kirkland.com
                  daniel.bress@kirkland.com
                  peter.farrell@kirkland.com
                  michael.williams@kirkland.com

Appellees Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Howard G. Sloane, Ira J.
Dembrow, and Scott A. Martin are represented by:

          Robert E. Ryan, Esq.
          Marc D. Haefner, Esq,
          Craig S. Demareski, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY LLP
          85 Livingston Avenue
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 535-0500
          Facsimile: (973) 535-9217
          E-mail: rryan@connellfoley.com
                  mhaefner@connellfoley.com
                  cdemareski@connellfoley.com

               - and -

          John K. Villa, Esq.
          David S. Blatt, Esq.
          Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq,
          Matthew B. Nicholson, Esq.
          Richard A. Olderman, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: jvilla@wc.com
                  dblatt@wc.com
                  kshanmugam@wc.com
                  mnicholson@wc.com
                  rolderman@wc.com

Appellee Thomas D. Halket is represented by:

          Eric Tunis, Esq.
          GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP
          99 Wood Avenue South
          Iselin, NJ 08830
          Telephone: (732) 549-5600
          Facsimile: (732) 549-1881
          E-mail: etunis@greenbaumlaw.com

               - and -

          Olivier Salvagno Esq.
          GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP
          Metro Corporate Campus One, Suite 4
          P.O. Box 5600
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 476-2426
          Facsimile: (732) 476-2427
          E-mail: osalvagno@greenbaumlaw.com

Appellee Glen Hemstock is represented by:

          Walter F. Timpone, Esq.
          Walter R. Krzastek, Jr., Esq.
          Michael B. Devins, Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue
          P.O. Box 2075
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Telephone: (973) 993-8100
          Facsimile: (973) 425-0161
          E-mail: wtimpone@mdmc-law.com
                  wkrzastek@mdmc-law.com
                  mdevins@mdmc-law.com

Appellee Arthur A. Dornbusch, II, is represented by:

          Kevin H. Marino, Esq.
          John A. Boyle, Esq.
          MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.
          437 Southern Boulevard
          Chatham, NJ 07928
          Telephone: (973) 824-9300
          Facsimile: (973) 824-8425
          E-mail: kmarino@khmarino.com
                  jboyle@khmarino.com

The appellate case is Kimberlee Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts
LLC, et al., Case No. 13-1089, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The trial court case is Kimberlee
Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al., Case No. 2-11-cv-
01754, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Pesticides Caused Bee Deaths, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pesticides made by Bayer and Syngenta are causing the mass die-
offs of Canadian honeybees, honey producers claim in a $400
million class action, according to Darryl Greer at Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiffs Sun Parlor Honey and Munro Honey sued Bayer
Cropscience, Syngenta Canada, and the companies' affiliates on
Sept. 2 in Ontario Superior Court.  The class claims Bayer and
Syngenta's insecticides, known as neonnicotinoids, have cost them
millions in lost honey production and pollination contracts.

"The chronic effects of the use of the neonicotinoids are felt by
Canada's beekeepers annually, and include: bee deaths; impaired
reproduction; immune suppression; behavioral abnormalities
resulting in hive loss; reduced honey production; impacts on the
quality of honey; contamination of hive equipment; loss of queen
bees; breeding stock; and difficulties fulfilling honey product or
pollination contracts," the complaint states.

"Foraging bees are exposed to the active ingredients in
neonicotinoids in addition to neonicotinoid degradates.  The
degradation components of the neonicotinoids are equally or more
toxic to bees. . . .  The stored pollen or nectar brought to the
bee hive containing a single neonicotinoid active ingredient may
later contain a mixture of both the active ingredient and the
degradation products that form over time.  This mixture poses a
significant risk of colony impairment for hives using stored food
sources during the fall and winter months."

Sun Parlor claims that it lost more than $2 million from 2006 to
2013 in lost hives and decreased honey production.

Munro Honey claims it lost more than $3 million in the same
period.  Both are among the province of Ontario's largest honey
producers and have been in business for nearly a century.

The beekeepers claim that Bayer and Syngenta's Imidacloprid,
Clothianidin, and Thiamethoxam chemicals linger in plants for
months or years and interfere with insects' nicotinic receptors,
causing "tremors, paralysis and death, at extremely low doses."

"Neonicotinoids are among the most widely used insecticides in
Canada and pose serious risks to the bee population primarily
because of their persistence in crops and soil, and their potency
at low concentrations," the complaint states.  "These properties,
coupled with the neonicotinoids' widespread use in many cropping
systems and presence in pollen and nectar, result in a chronic,
continuing and lethal exposure to the bee population."

The claim details several countries' responses to mass deaths in
bee populations, and says that Bayer and Syngenta were negligent
in "encouraging the indiscriminate use of neonicotinoids far
beyond what was reasonable or necessary, purely for their own
economic gain."

The class seeks $400 million in general and special damages, and
$50 million in punitive damages. It is represented by A. Dimitri
Lascaris, Michael Robb, Paula L. Lombardi, and Emilie McLachlan
Maxwell with Siskinds LLP, of London, Ontario.


BIEWER LUMBER: Faces "Stolzenburg" Class Suit in E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Stolzenburg, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated individuals v. Biewer Lumber, LLC dba Biewer
Lumber LLC, dba Biewer Lumber Company, dba Biewer Lumber v. Green
Tree Composites, L.L.C., dba Green Tree Composites, LLC, Case No.
4:14-cv-01533 (E.D. Mo., September 8, 2014) asserts product
liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis N. Smith, Jr., Esq.
          SMITH LAW FIRM, LLC
          225 S. Meramec Avenue, Suite 532
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-4400
          Facsimile: (800) 805-4563
          E-mail: neil@neilsmithlaw.com


BLOOMINGBURG, NY: Hasidic Jews Sue for Alleged Religious Bias
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Bloomingburg Jewish Education Center; Sullivan Farms II, Inc.;
Learning Tree Properties, LLC; Malka Rosenbaum; Sheindel Stein;
Commercial Corner, LLC; and Winterton Properties, LLC v. Village
of Bloomingburg, New York; Village Board of Trustees of The
Village of Bloomingburg, New York; Frank Gerardi, individually and
in his official capacity as Mayor; Eileen Rogers, individually and
in her official capacity as Village Clerk; Planning Board of The
Village Of Bloomingburg, New York; Andrew Finnema, individually
and in his former official capacity as Planning Board member; Ann
Haenelt, individually and in her former official capacity as
Planning Board member; Joseph B. Roe, individually and in his
former official capacity as Planning Board member; Town of
Mamakating, New York; Town Board of the Town of Mamakating, New
York; Planning Board of the Town of Mamakating, New York;
Katherine Roemer, individually and in her official capacity as
Trustee; James Johnson, individually and in his official capacity
as Trustee; and William Herrmann, individually and in his official
capacity as Supervisor for the Town of Mamakating, Case No. 1:14-
cv-07250 (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2014) seeks to stop an alleged
pervasive, government-sponsored religious discrimination against
Hasidic Jews.

The Village of Bloomingburg and the adjoining Town of Mamakating,
acting on behalf of an aggressive and hateful group of their
residents, are engaged in a conspiracy to prevent Hasidic Jews
from buying houses, establishing a private religious school, and
operating businesses in their community, the Plaintiffs allege.
They contend that after members of the Hasidic community began to
move into the area, Bloomingburg and Mamakating instituted a
number of roadblocks designed to stop the community from growing.
They add that these municipalities are engaged in a series of
patently illegal actions to block lawful, approved, and long-
planned developments in Bloomingburg and Mamakating.

The Village of Bloomingburg is a political subdivision of the
state of New York, with principal offices located in Bloomingburg,
Sullivan County, New York.  Village Board of Trustees of the
Village of Bloomingburg, New York is the legislative body of the
Village.  Frank Gerardi is the Mayor of the Village.  Eileen
Rogers is the Village Clerk of the Village.  Planning Board of the
Village of Bloomingburg is a village planning board duly organized
under the laws of the state of New York.  Andrew Finnema, Ann
Haenelt and Joseph B. Roe were members of the Planning Board.
Katherine Roemer and James Johnson are Trustees of the Village of
Bloomingburg.

The Town of Mamakating, New York is a political subdivision of the
state of New York, with principal offices located in Wurtsboro,
Sullivan County, New York.  The Town Board of the Town of
Mamakating is the legislative body of the Town.  Planning Board of
the Town of Mamakating is a town planning board duly organized
under the laws of the state of New York.  William Herrmann is the
Supervisor for the Town of Mamakating.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven A. Engel, Esq.
          Michael H. Park, Esq.
          K. Keely Rankin, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          1095 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 698-3500
          Facsimile: (212) 698-3599
          E-mail: steven.engel@dechert.com

               - and -

          John J. Henry, Esq.
          Robert S. Rosborough IV, Esq.
          WHITEMAN OSTERMAN & HANNA LLP
          One Commerce Plaza
          Albany, NY 12260
          Telephone: (518) 487-7600
          Facsimile: (518) 487-7777
          E-mail: jhenry@woh.com


CALIFORNIA: Amendments to Deals in Medi-Cal Cases Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on September 3, 2014, approved amendments to a
settlement agreement in cases accusing California of cutting Medi-
Cal payments and slashing wages for in-house workers, reports
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service.

The settlement resolves the Oster v. Lightbourne and Dominguez v.
Brown lawsuits.

The Oster lawsuit challenged Assembly Bill X4 4, passed in 2009,
and Senate Bill 73, passed in 2011, which mandated reductions to
the state's In Home Support Services (IHSS) program.

Lead plaintiff David Oster claimed that ABX4 4 violated the
Medicaid Act, which requires that states provide sufficient
benefits, by terminating or reducing IHSS services to individuals
who need them.

Two classes were certified in the Oster lawsuit.  The first was
for all IHSS recipients whose services would be limited, cut or
terminated under the provisions of ABX4 4, and all applicants who
would have been eligible for IHSS services but who are either not
eligible, or are eligible for fewer services, as a result of the
bill.

The second class was for all IHSS recipients who received notices
that included a reduction of IHSS hours based on SB 73, including
future applicants for IHSS services.

The Dominguez lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff Lydia Dominguez,
challenged wage reductions for IHSS providers, and represents a
class of IHSS recipients from 26 counties throughout California.

The settlement calls for a temporary 8 percent across-the-board
reduction in authorized service hours instead of a permanent 20
percent cut.  The 8 percent cut was to have been implemented
starting in July 2013, and was scheduled to be further reduced to
7 percent after 12 months.  The settlement also commits any
savings from retroactive federal approval of the new provider fee
to be reinvested for the benefit of IHSS recipients.

Under the settlement, recipients have the right to request a
reassessment based on a change of circumstances.  Recipients will
not be required to provide medical certification of a change in
their medical condition to obtain a reassessment, which will help
ensure that consumers who need additional hours will be able to
obtain them.

The amendments to the settlement call for the state to submit
proposed legislation authorizing an assessment on home care
services by no later than Feb. 1, 2015.  If the assessment is
passed, the state must then submit a request by April 1, 2015, to
the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for
authorization to implement the assessment.

The Dominguez Class is represented by:

          Stephen P. Berzon, Esq.
          Stacey M. Leyton, Esq.
          Peder J. Thoreen, Esq.
          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          Anne N. Arkush, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: sberzon@altshulerberzon.com
                  sleyton@altshulerberzon.com
                  pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com
                  skronland@altshulerberzon.com

The Oster Class is represented by:

          Melinda Bird, Esq.
          Marilyn Holle, Esq.
          Sujatha Jagadeesh Branch, Esq.
          Dara L. Schur, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290
          Los Angeles CA 90017
          Telephone: (213)213-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 213-8001
          E-mail: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org
                  marilyn@disabilityrightsca.org
                  dara.schur@disabilityrightsca.org

               - and -

          Anna Rich, Esq.
          National Senior Citizens Law Center
          1330 Broadway, Suite 525
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 663-1055

               - and -

          Paula Pearlman, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
          919 Albany Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90015
          Telephone: (213) 736-8195
          Facsimile: (213) 736-1428
          E-mail: paula.pearlman@lls.edu

               - and -

          Jane Perkins, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
          313 Ironwoods Drive
          Chapel Hill, NC 27516
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308

               - and -

          Charles Wolfinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES WOLFINGER
          4655 Cass St #314
          San Diego, CA 92109-2811
          Telephone: (858) 272-8115
          Facsimile: (858) 270-3960
          E-mail: cw@charleswolfinger.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kamala D. Harris, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
          Susan M. Carson, Esq.
          SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
          Telephone: (415) 703-5580
          Facsimile: (415) 703-5480
          E-mail: susan.carson@doj.ca.gov

The Dominguez case is Lydia Dominguez, et al. v. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California, et al., Case
No. CV 09-2306 CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


CHINA HOUSING: Accused of Being Taken Private at Unfair Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of China Housing &
Land Development are taking the company private at a price and in
a process unfair to minority shareholders, a class action claims
in Clark County Court.


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Food Servers' Wage Suit Can't Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Liston, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge has
ruled that food servers and bartenders employed by Darden
Restaurants Inc., which owns chains including Olive Garden, the
Capital Grille and LongHorn Steakhouse, cannot sue the company as
a group for alleged wage violations.

U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, signed an order early last week decertifying the class,
which could have numbered as many as 218,000 people, according to
court records.  Each server can instead file an individual lawsuit
against the company, Judge Dimitrouleas wrote.

The workers are considering their next moves, said a spokeswoman
for David Lichter, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys on the suit.

The Orlando-based company is the largest U.S. operator of full-
service restaurants.

The lawsuit, filed in 2012, alleged that servers were short-
changed by policies that circumvented an automated time-clock
system.  Servers who arrived for a shift were prohibited from
clocking in and being paid until the first customer arrived at a
restaurant, were forced to clock out before their work was
finished and were not paid correctly for overtime work, the
lawsuit contends.  It also charged that servers were paid below
minimum wage for non-tipped work, such as cleaning the
restaurants, refilling salt and pepper shakers and rolling
silverware in napkins.

The judge agreed with Darden's lawyers who argued that
circumstances were different for each employee and at each
restaurant, and that liability and damages for each person needed
to be calculated separately.

Darden said it was pleased with the court's decision.  "We said
from day one, these allegations flew in the face of our values,"
the company said in a statement.  "It is outrageous to think there
would be a systemic practice in place that would cheat our people
and violate the law."

More than 20,000 current and former employees from almost 2,000
Darden restaurants in all 50 states had requested to join the
class action before it was decertified, according to the order.

Pay for restaurant employees, and workers in general, has become a
growing issue in the United States over the past year.  On
Sept. 4, hundreds of employees from fast-food restaurants were
arrested in protests in about 150 cities calling for higher pay.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Bellwether Hip Replacement Trial Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Law.com, reports that the first
bellwether trial began on Sept. 2 in the hip replacement device
multidistrict litigation in Dallas federal court.

By the end of the first day of the trial, a jury of five women and
four men had been selected, according to Mark Lanier of the Lanier
Law Firm in Houston, who, along with Wayne Fisher of Fisher Boyd &
Huguenard, also in Houston, represents the plaintiff in the case.
Opening arguments were scheduled to take place on Sept. 3 in the
courtroom of U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of the Northern
District of Texas.

This first bellwether case will help set a pattern for future
trials in the MDL, which includes more than 4,000 complaints
related to the Pinnacle hip replacement system filed against its
manufacturers, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. and its parent company,
Johnson & Johnson Services Inc.

Michael Powell -- mpowell@lockelord.com -- a partner in the Dallas
office of Locke Lord, who represents DePuy and Johnson & Johnson,
declined through a firm spokesman to comment on the first day of
the trial.

In the case on trial, Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics, the
plaintiff, Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, filed a complaint in July 2012
alleging that "defendants have known, or should have known, that
the Pinnacle device was not safe or durable and presented a
considerable risk of injury to those implanted with it."

In her complaint, the plaintiff also alleged that, "defendants
knew, or should have known, of reports that metal-on-metal
implants, such as the Pinnacle, generated unusually high amounts
of metal debris over time due to unusual, premature or increased
wear and tear.  This debris can spread throughout the surrounding
bone and tissue and cause serious complications and damage."

Johnson & Johnson has defended its hip replacement system in court
and in the media.  A corporate spokesperson wrote in an email
earlier: "DePuy is vigorously defending itself against the claims
made in the Pinnacle Cup System litigation.  For more than 10
years, the Pinnacle Cup System has been a widely used and
clinically successful modular acetabular cup system for hip
replacement.  The Pinnacle Cup System has a strong track record of
helping to reduce pain and restore mobility for patients suffering
from chronic pain.  You should also know that lawsuits in the MDL
primarily involve allegations related to the metal-on-metal option
with the Pinnacle Cup System, called Ultamet.  Ultamet has
performed well in thousands of patients and is backed by clinical
data showing a track record of safety and effectiveness for
patients who are candidates for hip replacement."


DEL MONTE: Certification in Labeling Class Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Consumers accusing Del Monte Foods of mislabeling its products as
natural may renew their bid for class certification tailored to
the narrowed set of claims, Courthouse News Service reports,
citing a federal court ruling.

The case is Michael Kosta and Steve Bates v. Del Monte Foods,
Inc., Case No. 12-cv-1722-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Move to Coordinate 27 Cymbalta Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that more than two dozen lawsuits have been filed by patients who
allege that they suffered from dizziness, electrical sensations in
the brain and other side effects after they stopped taking the
prescription drug Cymbalta.

The suits, filed in 15 states, claim that Eli Lilly & Co., which
makes Cymbalta, failed to warn its customers about the withdrawal
side effects, which also include nausea, vomiting, sweating,
insomnia, nightmares and diarrhea.  On Aug. 15, plaintiffs
attorneys moved to coordinate 27 lawsuits for pretrial purposes
and said there could be "many hundreds, if not thousands, of
cases."  Lilly's response was due Sept. 9.

"This is a litigation that's going to balloon," said R. Brent
Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- an attorney at Baum,
Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman in Los Angeles.  "We know there have
been millions of people who've purchased Cymbalta over the last 10
years.  Half will experience withdrawal symptoms.  The potential
pool for claims in the litigation is staggeringly large."

Lilly spokeswoman Celeste Stanley declined to comment.
Cymbalta, which the U.S. Food & Drug Administration approved in
2004, is used to treat depression, anxiety, fibromyalgia and pain.
In 2012, a consumer class action was filed alleging Lilly failed
to warn about the side effects on its label and marketing
materials for Cymbalta.  Specifically, Lilly's own clinical
studies show that the chance of suffering from withdrawal symptoms
could be more than 50 percent, even though Cymbalta's label says
"greater than or equal to 1 percent," the suit says.

In his motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, Wisner argued that all the Cymbalta litigation should
be coordinated before the judge in that case, U.S. District Judge
Stephen Wilson, or else with U.S. District Judge George King, also
in the Central District of California, who is overseeing three
personal injury cases.

Of the 27 cases listed in his motion, 10 are in federal districts
in California.  The others are in federal courts in Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington
and Wisconsin.

Most of the suits have been filed in the past month by Baum
Hedlund and Pogust Braslow & Millrood in Conshohocken, Pa.


ENZYMOTEC LTD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Enzymotec
Ltd., on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of Enzymotec
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about September 27, 2013, and/or on
the open market between September 27, 2013 and August 4, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Please contact Lesley Portnoy at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150,
or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you
inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone
number and number of shares purchased.

Enzymotec develops, manufactures and markets bio-active lipid
ingredients used in the production of various nutritional
products.  The Company's primary source of revenue is through its
baby formula business, including the popular InFat line of
products.  The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
and Prospectus contained materially false and misleading
statements and omitted material information, and that defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose throughout the Class
Period that:

  -- Enzymotec's Chinese business was subject to material and
readily identifiable compliance regulations from the Chinese
government.
The Company's baby formula business in China was jeopardized and
subject to increased volatility and decreased revenues.

  -- The Company's joint venture with AarhusKarlshamn AB, which
marketed the popular InFat product, was crumbling and subjected
the Company to liability and decreased revenues.

  -- Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 14, 2014, the Company disclosed for the first time that
"Chinese regulations require infant formula manufacturers to make
certain changes to their production chain," and as a result the
Company's revenues were lower.  Then, on August 5, 2014, the
Company further disclosed the increased impact of the Chinese
regulations on its sales of infant formula, and announced
financial results that were significantly lower than the prior
year in almost all respects.  As a result of this news, Enzymotec
shares declined $5.85 per share, or nearly 40%, to close on
August 5, 2014, at $9.11 per share, on volume of more than 1
million shares.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 5 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, and docketed under 14-cv-
13459, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Flagstar securities between January 22,
2014 and August 26, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Flagstar securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 4, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Flagstar is the holding company for Flagstar Bank, FSB ("Flagstar
Bank").  Flagstar Bank accepts deposits from the general public
and originates or acquires residential mortgage loans.  Flagstar
Bank also originates consumer, commercial real estate, and
non-real estate commercial loans and it operates predominantly in
Michigan and Indiana, as well as throughout the United States.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects, performance, and compliance with federal
law.  Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
dating back to 2011, the Company's loss mitigation practices and
default servicing operations were not in compliance with various
federal consumer financial laws promulgated by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"); (ii) the Company lacked
proper internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 26, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), announcing that it has
begun settlement discussions with the CFPB over alleged violations
of consumer finance laws dating back to 2011.

As a result of these allegations, Mark Palmer, an analyst at BTIG
investment bank, downgraded its rating on Flagstar to sell, noting
that the "allegations raise questions regarding servicing
operations amid uncertainty of potential rebound of its mortgage
business."

On this news, Flagstar stock fell $0.83, or almost 4.5%, on
unusually heavy trading volume, to close at $17.66 on August 27,
2014.

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


GAF MATERIALS: Accused of Selling Defective Cross Timbers Decking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Wolcott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a/ GAF
Materials Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00623-REP (E.D. Va.,
September 8, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class of purchasers
and owners of structures that contain GAF Elk Cross Timbers or
DuraLife Decking.

GAF's Cross Timbers Decking is a non-natural wood product that is
made from manufactured composite wood.  The Cross Timbers Decking
is defective, and it cracks, warps, swells and expands at rates
well beyond what should be occurring with a product meant for the
outdoors, according to the complaint.

Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF
Materials Corporation, is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Wayne, New Jersey.  Cross Timbers Decking was originally
manufactured, marketed and sold by Elk Corporation and Elk
Composite Building Products, Inc.  Upon merging with Elk, GAF
continued to manufacture, advertise, market, distribute and sell
the Cross Timbers Decking.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          James Plummer Lukes, Esq.
          WISE & DONAHUE PLC
          11325 Random Hills Road, Suite 302
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 934-6377
          Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
          E-mail: dwise@wisedonahue.com
                  jlukes@wisedonahue.com


GENERAL MILLS: "Kellogg" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Kellogg v. General Mills, Inc.,
Case No. 4:14-cv-00939, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).  The New Jersey
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-05565-KM-SCM to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges that General Mills misleads consumers about
the nature of the ingredients of its cereal products sold under
the Kix brand name, namely Original Kix Crispy Corn Puffs Cereal,
Honey Kix Crispy Corn Puffs Cereal; and, Berry Berry Kix Crispy
Puffs Cereal.  The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant made the
misleading statements that its Products are "made with All Natural
Corn" or are "made with All Natural Corn & Honey," when in fact,
Kix was made from corn that is derived from unnatural genetically
modified plants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Carl S.M. Hum, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com
                  chum@reeeserichman.com

               - and -

          Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
          Henry J. Kelston, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: atadler@milberg.com
                  hkelston@milberg.com

               - and -

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          Facsimile: (213) 624-0643
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 877-3845
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David T. Biderman, Esq.
          Sunita B. Bali, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 344-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 344-7050
          E-mail: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com
                  SBali@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Charles Christian Sipos, Esq.
          Mica Dawn Simpson, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-3983
          Facsimile: (206) 359-4983
          E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com
                  MSimpson@perkinscoie.com


GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Superfund Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reports that a Minnesota federal
judge on Sept. 4 refused to throw out a proposed class action
accusing General Mills Inc. of allowing carcinogens from a
Superfund site to seep into a nearby residential area, finding the
plaintiffs showed they face a threat of future harm from continued
exposure to the chemicals.

In an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by General Mills,
U.S. District Judge Donovan W. Frank said the plaintiffs had met
their jurisdictional and pleading burdens in their suit claiming
vapors from trichloroethylene, or TCE, pose a health risk to
residents of a Minneapolis neighborhood and reduce the value of
their homes.

Judge Frank rejected arguments from General Mills that plaintiffs
lack standing for injunctive relief because the company has
already agreed to install air filtration systems to mitigate the
threat of injury from TCE vapors, noting that the plaintiffs
sought to eliminate TCE vapors from their properties, not merely
reduce them.

"Plaintiffs assert that there is a continuing threat of migration
of a known human carcinogen from the contaminated GMI facility
that is ongoing, real and immediate," Judge Frank wrote.  "These
factual allegations are sufficient for plaintiffs to meet their
burden of establishing jurisdiction."

The events behind the suit go all the way back to 1930, when
General Mills opened an industrial facility in Minneapolis' Como
neighborhood.  The facility closed in 1977, but for years the
company disposed of thousands of gallons of hazardous substances,
including TCE, by burying it in perforated drums in the ground at
the facility, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs sued under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act after becoming aware of
the contamination in 2013, claiming that despite General Mills
working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency since the 1980s to clean up the
site, TCE vapors still migrated to surrounding properties.

Judge Frank disagreed with General Mills that the court lacked
jurisdiction to hear the case, because the ongoing remediation
efforts with federal and state authorities were pursuant to
CERCLA, which says the EPA, not a district court, has authority
over an ongoing removal or remedial action.  Judge Frank found
that the Minnesota state government was in fact the controlling
authority regarding the cleanup efforts and not the federal
government.

In addition to determining the court had jurisdiction to hear the
case, Judge Frank found the plaintiffs had properly plead claims
of negligence, nuisance, willful and wanton misconduct and
violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

"The court concludes that based on these facts as alleged, the
court can reasonably infer that the vapor's impact is 'material
and substantial' by the standards of 'ordinary' people," Judge
Frank wrote. "Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint is denied."

Mark Thieroff -- markthieroff@siegelbrill.com -- of Siegel Brill
PA, who represents the plaintiffs, told Law360 he welcomed the
court's ruling.

"The case is now about evidence, and we look forward to the
opportunity to prove our allegations in this very important case,"
Thieroff said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edward J. Manzke and Shawn M.
Collins of The Collins Law Firm PC, Michael D. Hayes --
mhayes@vblhc.com -- and Norman B. Berger -- nberger@vblhc.com --
of Varga Berger Ledsky Hayes & Casey, Anne T. Regan --
anne.regan@zimmreed.com -- and J. Gordon Rudd Jr. --
gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- of Zimmerman Reed PLLP and Mark H.
Thieroff of Siegel Brill PA.

General Mills is represented by Benjamin W. Hulse --
bhulse@blackwellburke.com -- Corey L. Gordon --
cgordon@blackwellburke.com -- Emily A. Ambrose, Jerry W. Blackwell
and Wendy M. Carlisle -- wcarlisle@blackwellburke.com -- of
Blackwell Burke PA, Jeffrey Fowler -- jfowler@omm.com -- of
O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Mark J. Carpenter of Carpenter Law Firm
PLLC.

The case is Karl Ebert et al. v. General Mills Inc., case number
0:2013-cv-03341, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.


GOOGLE INC: To Settle FTC Unfair-Billing Charges for $19 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Google Inc. will pay at least $19 million to settle Federal Trade
Commission charges that the company unfairly billed consumers for
millions of dollars of unauthorized charges incurred by children
using mobile apps from the Google Play app store.

The deal follows a similar settlement with Apple Inc. in January
for $32.5 million for unauthorized children's mobile app charges.
The FTC in July also went after Amazon.com for unauthorized app
charges in a case that's pending in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington.

The FTC in an administrative complaint said Google violated the
FTC Act's prohibition on "unfair" commercial practices by allowing
kids to make in-app charges without any password requirement or
other method to ensure account-holder authorization.

"Children could rack up charges simply by tapping on pop-up boxes
that appeared in the app," FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a
conference call with reporters.  "Children had no way to know they
were spending real money."

The case, she added, is "an important step in the commission's
continuing work in ensuring consumers using mobile devices enjoy
the same protections that exist in other contexts."

Google, represented by Hogan Lovells partners Corey Roush --
corey.roush@hoganlovells.com -- and Logan Breed and associate
Wesley Carson, did not admit or deny the allegations.  In an
email, a Google spokeswoman said, "We've already made product
changes to ensure people have the best Google Play experience
possible.  We're glad to put this matter behind us so we can focus
on creating more ways for people to enjoy all the entertainment
they love."

The settlement calls for Google to refund at least $19 million to
consumers and to modify its billing practices to obtain express,
informed consent from consumers before billing them for in-app
charges.  Google must also contact all consumers who made in-app
charges to inform them of the refund process.


GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA: To Pay Women $475K to Settle Bias Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Co. will pay $475,000 in back
wages to settle sex discrimination claims from 1,293 female job
seekers, the Department of Labor said on September 4, 2014,
according to Courthouse News Service.  Coca-Cola also must offer
jobs to 116 of the original class members, as jobs become
available.


HOME DEPOT: Confirms Security Breach in U.S., Canadian Stores
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Blackwell, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
home improvement retailer Home Depot Inc. confirmed on Sept. 8
that its payment systems have suffered a security breach, and
Canadian clients are among those affected.

The chain said the breach "could potentially impact customers
using payment cards" in U.S. and Canadian stores, but there is no
evidence the breach hit online customers or stores in Mexico.

Home Depot, which has been tight-lipped since it revealed last
week it was investigating unusual activity that suggested a
potential breach, said on Sept. 8 that it still doesn't know the
"full scope, scale and impact of the breach."  It said there is no
evidence that PIN numbers associated with the debit cards have
been compromised. Its investigation is focusing on transactions
from April onward.

Home Depot has 2,266 stores, and 180 of those are in Canada.  A
Home Depot spokeswoman said the company cannot say how many
Canadian customers may have been affected because it does not yet
know "many details or the scale of the incident."

But the company said it has taken "aggressive" steps to address
the "malware" and protect its customers' data.  It is also
offering free identity protection, and credit monitoring to any
customer who has used a payment card at a Home Depot store since
April of this year.

Home Depot chief executive officer Frank Blake said in a statement
that "we owe it to our customers to alert them that we now have
enough evidence to confirm that a breach has indeed occurred.  It
is important to emphasize that no customer will be responsible for
fraudulent charges to their accounts."

The company said its internal technology security team has been
working around the clock with outside security organizations, its
banking partners, and the United States Secret Service to "gather
facts and provide information to customers."

The possible breach was first reported on Sept. 2 by the security
news website Krebs on Security, run by computer security expert
Brian Krebs.  He said several banks had reported seeing evidence
that Home Depot outlets "may be the source of a massive new batch
of stolen credit and debit cards."

In a posting, Mr. Krebs said analysis of card data posted on a
"cybercrime store" website suggests that a spate of stolen credit
card information recently put up for sale came from Home Depot.

Mr. Krebs said banks believe the breach may have begun in April or
May.  If that is the case "this breach could be many times larger
than Target, which had 40 million credit and debit cards stolen
over a three-week period."

Just before Christmas last year, Target said that credit and debit
card information on millions of customers had been stolen.  The
breach, and the work to rectify it, cut into the company's fourth-
quarter profit.  Some of Target's Canadian customers were affected
by that breach.

Mr. Krebs said in a posting on Sept. 8 that sources had told him
the Home Depot breach was helped by a new variant of the
"BlackPOS" malware that stole account data from Target.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Stored Communications Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Mazerolle, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02887-WSD (N.D.
Ga., September 8, 2014) seeks relief under the Stored
Communications Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Andrew Bain, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
          1050 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 724-9990
          Facsimile: (404) 724-9986
          E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

               - and -

          Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
          GILMAN LAW LLP
          Beachway Professional Center Tower
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 202
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 221-8301
          Facsimile: (239) 676-8224
          E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com


INTERMOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indica Heredia, individual California resident, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Intermountain
Management, L.L.C., Louisiana, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 5:14-cv-04006-RMW (N.D. Cal., September 3, 2014) alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay wages and overtime wages.

Intermountain Management, L.L.C. is a Louisiana Limited Liability
Company with its principal place of business in California.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose R. Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          9861 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 260-9193
          Facsimile: (949) 260-9194
          E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com


LEVIN FURNITURE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Levin Furniture Co., Case No. 2:14-cv-01214-RCM (W.D.
Pa., September 8, 2014) seeks relief pursuant to The Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Class Action Over Sharp Chrome Defect Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that
a California federal judge on Sept. 5 tossed a putative class
action alleging Mercedes-Benz USA LLC sold cars with interior
chrome components that could flake off and expose sharp edges,
saying the paper cut-like wounds the plaintiff allegedly suffered
weren't a safety risk, despite contentions the wounds could become
infected.

During a hearing in Los Angeles, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee
said the infection argument was speculative, even though the
plaintiff brought in a physician as an expert witness to testify
to the threat posed by the wounds.

"I can't tell you how many paper cuts I've sustained since I came
to the bench," Judge Gee said.

Defense attorney Eric J. Knapp of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP
told the judge that untold millions of paper cuts are suffered
daily, and if there were a serious threat of infection, "I think
the Centers for Disease Control would be involved at this point."

The judge's decision to grant summary judgment in the case
disposes of the February 2012 suit, in which plaintiff Ani
Avedisian accused the company -- the U.S. distributor for Daimler
AG -- of selling cars during a six-year period with trim pieces
that could flake, crack and peel and create sharp edges that could
lacerate passengers' hands.

According to the complaint, Mercedes-Benz knew for several years
that the chrome defect had begun manifesting in cars made as early
as 2006 but has neither remedied the problem nor advised consumers
after the vehicles were purchased or leased by class members.

Consumers were allegedly unable to discover the alleged defect
until long after their initial purchase because of Mercedes-Benz's
active concealment, which Avedisian argued should toll the
applicable statutes of limitations for the suit's claims under the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and unfair competition law,
and for fraud and breach of express and implied warranties.

Mercedes filed its motion for summary judgment in July, arguing
there is no actual safety-related defect in the case because the
alleged injuries are superficial and de minimis.

"Plaintiff, her husband and even plaintiff's own expert, among
others, universally describe injuries allegedly attributable to
contact with chrome trim pieces in her vehicle as a 'superficial
cut,' 'paper cut,' 'tiny cut,' 'scrape,' 'small scratch' 'nick,' a
'nuisance,' a 'cosmetic' issue and the like," the motion argued.
"It is also undisputed that no medical treatment was ever sought
or received for these alleged injuries."

The plaintiff argued that proof that a plaintiff sought medical
treatment for an infection was not required, and that one person
did have his wound sutured at an emergency room.  She also argued
that Mercedes-Benz failed to disclose information about the
alleged safety-related defect to consumers.

In January, Judge Gee rejected a motion by Mercedes-Benz to impose
sanctions on the plaintiffs, disagreeing with the carmaker's
contention that the lawsuit was frivolous.

The plaintiff is represented by Stephen M. Harris --
smh@kpclegal.com -- of Knapp Peterson & Clarke and by Robert L.
Starr and Adam Morris Rose of the Law Office of Robert L. Starr.

Mercedes-Benz is represented by Troy M. Yoshino, Matthew J. Kemner
and Eric J. Knapp of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP.

The case is Ani Avedisian v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC et al., case
number 2:12-cv-00936, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


MERCK & CO: Judge Allows Antitrust Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Pennsylvania federal judge has allowed the majority of claims to
proceed against Merck & Co. in a qui tam suit and related
antitrust putative class action over the company's testing and
government sales of its mumps vaccine.

U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued one opinion on Sept. 5 in two related suits --
United States v. Merck & Co. and Chatom Primary Care v. Merck &
Co.

Two former virologists at Merck brought claims as relators under
the False Claims Act, alleging Merck, the sole company approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to sell a mumps vaccine,
falsified testing of the efficacy of the drug and misstated the
drug's efficacy to the government as having a 95 percent efficacy
rate, according to the opinion.  The United States declined to
intervene in that suit.  The putative class action is based on the
claims made in the qui tam action and argues Merck's alleged
"manipulation and misrepresentation" of the vaccine's efficacy
allowed for Merck's monopoly of the mumps vaccine market, Judge
Jones said.  The class action raises various Sherman Act
violations and violations of state laws, according to the opinion.

Merck moved to dismiss both actions.

Jude Jones denied Merck's motion as to all of the claims in the
qui tam action.  In his analysis of those claims, Judge Jones
found that relators can plead a fraud-on-the-FDA theory through a
False Claims Act suit.

As to the class action, Judge Jones dismissed many of the state
law claims, except for some of those involving New York and New
Jersey law.  He sustained the Sherman Act claim, finding that
while it was a "slightly novel theory of liability" that Merck's
alleged deliberate concealing of information secured its monopoly
on sales of the vaccine to the government, the unique facts of the
case create the basis for an antitrust claim.

Those unique facts were Merck's 100 percent monopoly on the market
and its statutory and contractual duties to disclose information,
Judge Jones said.

"Plaintiffs have argued sufficient facts to sustain a claim for
proximate causation, detailing the significant barriers that other
companies would face to enter the mumps vaccine market,"
Judge Jones said.

Merck is represented in the two cases by Dino S. Sangiamo --
dssangiamo@Venable.com -- and Sally Bryan -- srbryan@Venable.com
-- of Venable LLP in Baltimore, and Eric W. Sitarchuk --
esitarchuk@morganlewis.com -- and Lisa Dykstra --
ldykstra@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in
Philadelphia.  Calls to Sangiamo and Sitarchuk were not
immediately returned.

Kellie C. Lerner -- klerner@rkmc.com -- and Hollis Salzman --
hsalzman@rkmc.com -- of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in New
York are leading the plaintiffs team in the class action suit.
They said it was a favorable ruling for the class and they were
pleased the judge upheld the federal antitrust claim.

Gordon Schnell -- gschnell@constantinecannon.com -- of Constantine
Cannon in New York is leading the team for the qui tam plaintiffs.
He said he was happy with the decision and looked forward to
proceeding with the case.

False Claims Act

In the qui tam action, Merck argued the relators' claims
essentially go to the alleged fact that the drug's label stating a
95 percent efficacy rate was false.  Merck argued labeling changes
are solely within the purview of the FDA and cannot be disputed
through a False Claims Act suit.  The relators countered that
their claims speak more broadly than arguing the label was false.
Judge Jones upheld all of the relators' claims in the qui tam
suit, rejecting Merck's argument that it was an issue for the FDA
to police.  Judge Jones cited the government's statement of
interest it filed in the case on this issue despite choosing not
to intervene.  In it, the government said holding that only the
government and not a relator can litigate a False Claims Act suit
arising from allegations of fraud on the FDA would be inconsistent
with the purposes of the False Claims Act.

"The court agrees.  Relators allege that [Merck] consistently and
deliberately withheld pertinent information as to the safety and
efficacy of a medication from the government," Judge Jones said.
"It is this alleged omission that is the grounds for FCA
liability."

Judge Jones noted that, in order to survive a motion to dismiss,
the relators further had to allege with particularity that the
defendant presented or caused to be presented to an agent of the
United States a claim for payment, that the claim was false or
fraudulent and that the defendant knew the claim was false or
fraudulent.

Judge Jones said the relators plainly showed Merck submitted
claims to the government for payment for the vaccine on many
occasions since 1999.  Judge Jones further ruled the relators
sufficiently pleaded that there was information about the alleged
lessened efficacy of the vaccine that was not reported to the
government and that the omission was material to the government
continuing to buy the vaccine.

As to Merck knowing the claims were false, Judge Jones said the
relators sufficiently alleged their firsthand experience in
Merck's labs in which they allegedly witnessed supervisors and
managers instructing staff to withhold information from the
government.

The False Claims Act not only provides for counts alleging false
claims to the government -- submitting the requests for payments -
- but for false statements, Judge Jones noted.  He upheld the
relators' claims regarding false statements, citing their
allegations that Merck falsely represented the efficacy of the
drug through labels, applications for a labeling change and
through not disclosing its knowledge of the weaker efficacy of the
drug during mumps outbreaks in 2006 and 2009, according to the
opinion.

Class Action

In the proposed class action, the named plaintiffs are Alabama-
based Chatom Primary Care and two individual doctors from New York
and New Jersey, respectively.  They allege Merck's monopoly on the
drug caused them to pay more for the drug.  Aside from the
plaintiffs' antitrust claims in the putative class action, which
were upheld, Jones had to address the state law claims.

Judge Jones determined that the plaintiffs only have standing to
bring state law claims under laws of the states in which they
reside -- New York, New Jersey and Alabama.  He said they did not
specify what, if any, injuries they suffered in the 22 other
jurisdictions whose laws they invoked.  Those claims instead rest
on "abstract" injuries suffered by unidentified members of the
putative class, Judge Jones said in dismissing those claims.

Judge Jones went on to reject Merck's argument that the remaining
state law claims were preempted by a bar on state fraud-on-the-FDA
claims.  Judge Jones said other courts have found that, when a
claim incorporates but does not rely upon a fraud on the FDA, a
state tort claim is not preempted.  Judge Jones said the
plaintiffs are alleging the fraud was part of a larger scheme to
maintain an anti-competitive business regime.

"A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on these state law claims
would not have any effect on the method by which the FDA regulates
the defendant, or infringe on any FDA remedy to police fraud,"
Judge Jones said.

Judge Jones further rejected Merck's argument that it would be
impossible for it to comply with both federal labeling
requirements and state laws.

"This court finds it difficult to accept that [Merck] would be
penalized for providing additional information on its warning
label," Judge Jones said.

Judge Jones went on to uphold the plaintiffs' claim under the New
York Deceptive Acts and Practices Statute as well as the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  Merck had argued the New Jersey doctor
couldn't be considered a consumer of the vaccine considering he
was giving it to his patients, but Judge Jones rejected that
argument, ruling the doctor's use of the vaccine destroys the
vaccine's further utility and isn't used for resale.

Judge Jones granted Merck's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: "Cutrone" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cutrone, et al. v. Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-mc-00861, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:14-mc-01089-ENV to the proceeding.

Interested Party John A. Murphy is represented by:

          Gabriel M. Nugent, Esq.
          ROBERTS, SHERIDAN & KOTEL
          12 East 49th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 299-8600


NASHVILLE, TN: Discovery in 41-Year-Old Class Suit Must Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery from an anonymous plaintiff must proceed before the
court can rule on a consent decree at the heart of a 41-year-old
class action about arrest records, reports Kevin Lessmiller at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

"The procedural history of this case is both remarkable and
tortured," U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger wrote in the 17-page
ruling.  "John Doe, whose identity remains under seal, initiated
this class action lawsuit in 1973, seeking to change local
policies concerning the consideration and dissemination of arrest
records that did not involve a conviction."

Doe, on behalf of the class, entered into two consent decrees with
the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in
the mid-70s.

The 1973 consent decree required Metro Nashville not to consider
arrest records in new hires, and the 1974 decree related to the
dissemination and publication of arrest records.

Vanderbilt University Law School Professor James Blumstein, an
attorney in the original lawsuit, reopened the case in 2006 by
filing a "motion for further relief to assure compliance" with the
1974 decree.

A Tennessee district court vacated the 1974 decree based on a
Supreme Court repeal and the 6th Circuit affirmed.

Negotiations over modifications to the 1973 decree stalled and
both parties have submitted their own proposed modifications,
which are pending.

The district granted Metro Nashville's motion for discovery of a
class representative in February, with both the court and the
defendants suspecting that the plaintiff's attorney was
"negotiating on the basis of his own views and was not consulting
with the class representative, John Doe," according to the new
ruling.

Doe, with a supporting affidavit, responded by moving to add a
Jane Roe as a plaintiff.  The court then granted a motion to defer
previously ordered discovery of the class representative.

In the lawsuit's latest saga, the district court granted Metro
Nashville's motion for reconsideration, vacated an April order
staying discovery, and denied the parties' competing motions to
modify the 1973 consent decree.

Trauger deferred ruling on a motion to add a named plaintiff, and
permitted "discovery to proceed relative to both John Doe and Jane
Roe, and, perhaps, with respect to the substitution of an
appropriate representative party more generally."

"In order to resolve whether and how to modify the decree (or
whether factual circumstances now warrant reconsideration of the
court's previous refusal to vacate the decree), the court will
required a better developed -- or at least centralized -- record
supporting each side's proposed modifications," Trauger wrote.

"Furthermore, the issue of standing (as to John Doe and the
prospective Jane Roe) is now of paramount concern and could
substantially affect the nature and types of modifications to the
decree," the judge wrote.  "Rather than rule on the motions
without sufficient facts and on such shifting procedural sands,
the court will deny both motions [to modify] without prejudice to
refilling them at an appropriate stage."

The case is John Doe, et al. v. Beverly Briley, et al., Case No.
3:73-6971, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: "Fritsche" Trauma Suit Transferred to Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Fritsche, et al. v. National
Hockey League, Case No. 1:14-cv-05732, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the U.S. District of Minnesota.  The
Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv-03377-
SRN-JSM to the proceeding.

The action arises from the alleged debilitating effects of head
trauma, including mild traumatic brain injuries, caused by the
concussive and sub-concussive impacts that have afflicted former
professional hockey players in the NHL.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arun S. Subramanian, Esq.
          Seth D. Ard, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          654 Madison Ave., 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10065
          Telephone: (212) 471-8346
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, PC
          101 W Elm St., Suite 360
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: penny@gskplaw.com

               - and -

          John Zaremba, Esq.
          ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN, PLLC
          40 Wall Street, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 400-7224
          E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com


NATIONAL OILWELL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Benzon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Case No. 4:14-cv-02582
(S.D. Tex., September 8, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages owed to the Defendant's workers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

National Oilwell Varco, L.P., is a Delaware corporation doing
business in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap
          Lindsay R. Itkin
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON LLP
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


NEVSUN RESOURCES: October 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE NEVSUN RESOURCES LTD.
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION

Read this notice carefully as it may affect your rights.

PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE

This notice is directed to all persons, other than certain persons
associated with the defendants, who acquired securities of Nevsun
Resources Ltd. ("Nevsun") during the period from March 31, 2011 to
and including February 6, 2012 ("Class Period") and held some or
all of those shares at the close of trading on February 6,
2012 ("Class Members").

In 2012, a proposed class action was commenced against Nevsun and
certain others in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the
"Court").  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants knew, or
ought to have known, that the stated gold reserves at the Bisha
mine were materially overstated.

A proposed settlement has been reached, without admission of
liability, which is subject to the approval by the Court.  The
settlement is a compromise of disputed claims.  The defendants
have denied and continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
fault, liability or damage in respect of the claims alleged in the
class action.  This notice provides a summary of the proposed
settlement.

THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

The defendants will pay US $5,350,000 in full and final settlement
of all claims against them and the other defendants.  The
settlement funds, less the lawyers' fees approved by the Court and
administration costs, will be distributed to or on behalf of the
Class Members. The Settlement Agreement may be reviewed at
www.nevsun.com/fricke-settlementagreement.pdf

LAWYERS' FEES, DISBURSEMENTS AND TAXES

The lawyers for the Class Members will ask the Court to approve
legal fees in the amount of 25 percent of US $5,350,000, plus
disbursements, plus taxes.

THE COURT HEARINGS

The Court will be asked to certify the action as a class action
and approve the proposed settlement and the lawyers' fees,
disbursements and taxes at hearings to be held on October 6, 2014
at 10:30 a.m. E.T., at the Court House, 245 Windsor Avenue,
Windsor, Ontario for the Ontario action.

Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement need not
appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time to
indicate their desire to participate in the proposed settlement.
Class Members who consider it desirable or necessary to seek the
advice and guidance of their own lawyers may do so at their own
expense.

OBJECTIONS

At the hearing, the Court will consider any objections to the
proposed settlement by the Class Members if the objections are
submitted in writing, by prepaid mail or e-mail to: Gregory D.
Wrigglesworth, Kirwin Partners LLP, 423 Pelissier Street, Windsor,
Ontario, N9A 4L2, fax: 519.790.0106, email:
nevsun@kirwinpartners.com

Attention: Nevsun Class Action, by no later than 5:00 p.m. on
October 2, 2014.

A written objection should include the following information:

(a) the Class Member's name, current mailing address, telephone
number, fax number and email address;
(b) the number of shares purchased during and held at the close of
the Class Period;
(c) a brief statement of the nature of and reasons for the
objection; and
(d) whether the Class Member intends to appear at the hearing in
person or by counsel, and, if by counsel, the
name, address, telephone number, fax number and email address of
counsel.

IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED

If the proposed settlement is approved, there will be another
notice published that will advise Class Members how to make a
claim for settlement monies and how to decline to participate in
the class action (i.e. opt-out).

QUESTIONS

Questions for the Class Members' lawyers may be directed to:

Jay Strosberg
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
600-251 Goyeau Street
Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
Telephone: 800.229.5323 ext 8296
Fax: 866.316.5308
E-mail: nevsun@strosbergco.com

This notice has been approved by the Court.  Questions about
matters in this notice should NOT be directed to the Court.


OVASCIENCE INC: Plaintiffs Re-Filed Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, a purported shareholder
class action, styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al.,
was filed on September 16, 2013, in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and
certain of its officers as defendants.

The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges that we made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the qualification of the AUGMENT treatment as a 361 HCT/P in our
public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013
through September 10, 2013, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder."

"On February 2, 2014, we and certain of our officers, as
defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court. On
February 3, 2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner voluntarily dismissed
the suit without prejudice.

"On June 6, 2014, this purported shareholder class action was re-
filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers
as defendants. The lawsuit includes the same allegations as were
included in the action filed on September 16, 2013. The complaint
seeks certification of a class of purchasers of our stock during
the period February 25, 2013 through September 10, 2013. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.

"We believe that this action is without merit and intend to defend
it vigorously. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the
likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to us."

OvaScience is a global life science company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of new fertility
treatments.  Its patented technology is based on egg precursor
cells, or EggPCs, which are found in the outer layer of a woman's
own ovaries. The discovery of EggPCSM cells countered a long-held
medical belief that women are born with a set number of eggs,
thereby enabling new possibilities in the treatment of female
infertility.


PURDUE PHARMA: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Opioid Painkillers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that several drugmakers facing a lawsuit from Chicago over
allegedly misrepresenting the safety of using their opioid
painkillers in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer pain argue
that the case should be dismissed because the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has primary jurisdiction over the drugs.

Defendants Purdue Pharma L.P. and related defendants, Teva
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and its subsidiary Cephalon Inc., Johnson &
Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc.
and Actavis, plc filed the joint motion.

The pharmaceutical companies argue that the FDA rejected a citizen
petition from medical and other health officials to change opioid
labeling to specify a daily-dose maximum equivalent to 100
milligrams morphine, to specify that opioids should not be
continuously used beyond 90 days for non-cancer pain and to inform
prescribers that only severe pain, not moderate pain, was an
indication to use this type of painkiller.

According to the drugmakers, the only change the FDA made right
away was to indicate that the drugs should only be prescribed for
pain "severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term
opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are
inadequate."

The FDA then required the drugmakers to conduct new studies of the
risks of addiction, overdose and other problems with the opioids,
and those studies are slated to be completed between 2015 and
2018, the defendants said.

"The city seeks to have this court second-guess scientific and
regulatory determinations the FDA has recently made after
reviewing the currently available scientific evidence, and
interfere with FDA's continued and active investigation of these
issues, posing an obvious risk of inconsistent and non-uniform
administrative and judicial determinations of matters placed
within the FDA's 'special competence' and 'dependent to some
degree upon administrative policy,'" the defendant said.

The pharmaceutical companies also all allege that city's complaint
should be dismissed because it improperly lumps them in together
without pleading sufficient facts about each of them.

"Despite more than 375 paragraphs and 120 pages, the city's
complaint fails to allege any of the specific facts required to
state a fraud-based claim, including that any defendant made any
false statement to anyone connected with any opioid prescription
the city paid for," the defendants said.  "Prolixity cannot
substitute for either specificity or clarity."

The defendants also alleged that the city has not plausibly
alleged that alleged misrepresentations about their painkillers
caused the city to have to pay out for opioid prescriptions.  The
city alleges it has spent $9.5 million to reimburse opioid
prescriptions under the city's health plans.

In separate motions to dismiss, Actavis argues that it does not
sell any pharmaceutical products and Teva argues that it does not
make or sell opioids in the United States.


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Inmates' Mental Health Care Suit Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard K. De Atley, writing for The Press Enterprise, a civil
rights lawsuit by some Riverside County jail inmates has been
granted class-action status by a federal judge, giving thousands
of inmates legal standing in the case that claims inadequate
medical and mental health care and suicide prevention in the
county's five jails.

The 2013 lawsuit filed by attorneys with the Prison Law Office in
Berkeley said the county has acted with "deliberate indifference"
regarding those issues and others, such as inadequate numbers of
health care personnel including physicians, even after county
grand jury reports in 2011 and 2012 criticized medical and mental
health care in the jails, which are overseen by the Sheriff's
Department.

"This is a case to reform care.  We are not seeking money for our
clients," attorney Sara Norman of the Prison Law Office said
Wednesday in a telephone interview.

"The county will conduct a thorough review of the decision before
determining the appropriate response to the court," Riverside
County spokesman Ray Smith said in a statement.

The 116-page ruling issued late on Sept. 2 by U.S. District Judge
Virginia Phillips in Riverside Federal Court says the most general
class includes "all prisoners who are now, or will be in the
future, subjected to the medical and mental health practices of
Riverside County."

At any given time there are about 4,000 inmates throughout the
county system, which has been at its maximum legally permissible
population since shortly after state prison realignment went into
effect nearly three years ago.

That has forced more than 23,500 early releases since January 2012
and increased dangers for both jail personnel and inmates as
longer-term prisoners were sentenced to facilities originally
built for stays under a year.  As of August, 496 of the
facilities' inmates were serving terms of three years or longer.

Problems Preceded Realignment

But the problems with medical and mental health care alleged in
the lawsuit existed before prison realignment, and have only
worsened since, Ms. Norman said.

Recent jail improvements spurred by realignment needs and not the
legal action have expanded mental health care facilities inside
the jails and added mental health care workers to interview new
inmates.

Ms. Norman said those actions can't take care of the systemic
problems alleged in the lawsuit, such as problems getting an
appointment to see a doctor or a psychiatrist or getting the right
medication at the right time.

Judge Phillips' ruling means the plaintiffs can seek inspection
visits of the jails by experts to further identify issues for
trial.

Ms. Norman said the goal is to reach a reform plan with the county
before that.  She said Prison Law Office attorneys were
approaching such an agreement in a similar lawsuit filed in Fresno
County.

"We could do that (in Riverside County) now.  The county can save
a lot of time and money by agreeing to experts and agreeing to
overhaul the system.  That is better than going to trial, which is
time consuming and expensive for both sides," she said.


TOWER GROUP: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Discontinued
----------------------------------------------------------
The settled consolidated merger-related lawsuit against Tower
Group International, Ltd., was discontinued with prejudice but
without costs, providing that counsel for the Plaintiffs could
apply for restoration of the action, according to the Company's
August 21, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2014.

According to the Company: "On January 14, 2014, Derek Wilson, a
purported shareholder of Tower, filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Wilson Complaint") against Tower, certain of its
current and former directors, ACP Re Ltd. ("ACP Re"), London
Acquisition Company Limited ("Merger Sub"), and AmTrust Financial
Services, Inc. ("AmTrust") in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The Wilson Complaint alleges
that the members of the Company's Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of Tower under
Bermuda law by approving Tower's entry into the ACP Re Merger
Agreement and failing to take steps to maximize the value of Tower
to its public shareholders, and that Tower, ACP Re, Merger Sub,
and AmTrust aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The Wilson Complaint also alleges, among other things, that the
proposed transaction undervalues Tower, that the process leading
up to the ACP Re Merger Agreement was flawed, and that certain
provisions of the ACP Re Merger Agreement improperly favor ACP Re
and discourage competing offers for the Company. The Wilson
Complaint further alleges oppressive conduct by the directors
against Tower's shareholders in violation of Bermuda law. The
Wilson Complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and
injunctive relief concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches,
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from consummating the
proposed transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to
the extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable
relief. On February 27, 2014, the same purported shareholder filed
an amended complaint alleging, in addition, that the Company and
the directors disseminated a materially false and misleading
preliminary proxy statement regarding the ACP Re Merger Agreement
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder (the "Wilson Amended
Complaint")."

"On March 3, 2014, another purported shareholder filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, ACP Re, Merger Sub, and
AmTrust, also in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Raul Complaint"). The Raul Complaint
alleges that the defendants disseminated a materially false and
misleading preliminary proxy statement regarding the ACP Re Merger
Agreement in violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 14a-9."

"On May 12, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order consolidating the
Wilson and Raul actions (hereinafter the "Consolidated Federal
Action"). On May 22, 2014, the Court issued an order appointing
Wilson and George Strum, another purported shareholder of the
Company, as co-lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Action
and appointing Robbins Arroyo LLP and WeissLaw LLP as co-lead
counsel."

"On March 24, 2014, two purported shareholders of the Company
filed a purported class action and shareholder derivative
complaint against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and Tower Group, Inc. in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York (the "Bekkerman
Complaint" and, together with the Wilson Amended Complaint and the
Raul Complaint, the "Merger Complaints"). The Bekkerman Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
shareholders of the Company by failing to exercise appropriate
oversight over the conduct of the Company's business, awarding
Michael Lee excessive compensation, approving the Company's entry
into the ACP Re Merger Agreement, failing to take steps to
maximize the value of the Company to its public shareholders, and
misrepresenting or omitting material information in connection
with the proposed transaction, and that the Company and Tower
Group, Inc. aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The Bekkerman Complaint also alleges, among other things, that Lee
was unjustly enriched as a result of the compensation he received
while allegedly breaching his fiduciary duties and by selling
stock while in the possession of material, adverse, non-public
information. The Bekkerman Complaint seeks, among other things, an
award of money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the defendants from consummating the proposed
transaction, rescission of the ACP Re Merger Agreement to the
extent already implemented, and other forms of equitable relief.
On May 16, 2014, the defendants removed the Bekkerman action to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and requested that it be designated as related to the
Consolidated Federal Action. On June 3, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York accepted the
designation of the Bekkerman Complaint as related to the
Consolidated Federal Action. On July 21, 2014, the Court issued an
order consolidating the Bekkerman action into the Consolidated
Federal Action for all purposes."

"On July 25, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle the Consolidated Federal
Action. The settlement remains subject to appropriate
documentation by the parties and approval by the Court. As part of
the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures to Tower shareholders on Form 8-K, which was filed
with the SEC on July 28, 2014. As set forth therein, the
defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have
committed any of the unlawful or wrongful acts alleged in the
Merger Complaints or otherwise in relation to the Merger
Agreement, or any of the events or actions related thereto, and
specifically deny that any further disclosure was required to
supplement the Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law. The Company agreed to provide those
supplemental disclosures solely to minimize the cost of defending
the litigation and to permit the special general meeting and
stockholder vote to proceed without delay."

"On July 29, 2014, the Court ordered that the Consolidated Federal
Action be discontinued with prejudice but without costs,
providing, however, that counsel for plaintiffs could apply by
letter for restoration of the action to the calendar within 30
days of the order, in which event the action will be restored. The
Company believes that it is not probable that the Merger
Complaints will result in a loss, and if they would result in a
loss, that the amount of any such loss cannot reasonably be
estimated."


TOWER GROUP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Group International, Ltd., continues to defend itself
against a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the Company's August 21, 2014 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2014.

According to the Company: "On August 20, 2013, Robert P. Lang, a
purported shareholder of Tower Group International Ltd. ("Tower"),
filed a purported class action complaint (the "Lang Complaint")
against Tower and certain of its current and former officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The Lang Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased Tower stock between July 30, 2012
and August 8, 2013."

"The Lang Complaint alleges that Tower and certain of its current
and former officers violated federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages. On September 3, 2013, a second purported
shareholder class action complaint was filed by Dennis Feighay,
another purported Tower shareholder, containing similar
allegations to those set forth in the Lang Complaint (the "Feighay
Complaint"). The Feighay Complaint purports to be asserted on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased Tower stock between May
9, 2011 and August 7, 2013. On October 4, 2013, a third complaint
was filed by Sanju Sharma (the "Sharma Complaint"). The Sharma
Complaint names as defendants Tower and certain of its current and
former officers, and purports to be asserted on behalf of a
plaintiff class who purchased Tower stock between May 10, 2011 and
September 17, 2013. On October 18, 2013, an amended complaint was
filed in the Sharma case (the "Sharma Amended Complaint"). The
Sharma Amended Complaint alleges additional false and misleading
statements, and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff
class who purchased Tower stock between March 1, 2011 and October
7, 2013. On October 21, 2013, a number of motions were filed
seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one
matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff."

"On June 17, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order consolidating the
Lang, Feighay, and Sharma actions (hereinafter the "Consolidated
Securities Action") and appointing Adar Enhanced Investment Fund,
Ltd. and Adar Investment Fund, Ltd. (the "Adar Funds") and
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, and the Kansas City, Missouri
Employees' Retirement System (the "Public Pension Funds") as co-
lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action and
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Saxena White P.A., and Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP as co-lead counsel. On July 1, 2014, the
Court entered a stipulation and order providing for the co-lead
plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
August 22, 2014."

The Company believes that it is not probable that the Consolidated
Securities Action will result in a loss, and if it would result in
a loss, that the amount of any such loss cannot reasonably be
estimated.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Translator in Acceleration Suit Faces Sanctions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a translator who provided internal Toyota documents
to news outlets is facing sanctions for not obeying a protective
order in the litigation over the carmaker's vehicles that
unexpectedly accelerated.

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of
California ordered Betsy Benjaminson, who lives in Israel and is a
self-described whistleblower, to show cause why she should not be
sanctioned.  Judge Selna ordered Ms. Benjaminson to appear in his
Santa Ana, Calif., courtroom on Oct. 27.  Ms. Benjaminson worked
for Linguistic Services Inc., Toyota's translation vendor, and
then promulgated thousands of Toyota's documents.

Ms. Benjaminson also obtained a PowerPoint presentation prepared
by Michael Barr, a plaintiffs expert witness on embedded software
who concluded that Toyota's source code was defective and led to
unintended acceleration in the plaintiffs' Toyota Camry.  The
plaintiff's expert presented the information during the first
trial to test whether Toyota's throttle-control systems caused
vehicles to spontaneously accelerate.

According to Toyota's court papers, Ms. Benjaminson obtained the
source-code material from another plaintiffs expert Antony
Anderson, who got it from Mr. Barr's Dropbox account.  Anderson is
not one of the 17 people to whom Barr admitted he had given access
to his Dropbox account.

After Toyota subpoenaed Ms. Benjaminson via email to give a
deposition about how she got the stolen documents, Ms. Benjaminson
asserted her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"Beyond these blatant and knowing violations of the protective
order Benjaminson has used her blog to ridicule this court's
orders, lodge personal attacks against Toyota and its counsel and
even -- most brazenly -- to question the court's competence on
these matters," Lisa Gilford -- lisa.gilford@skadden.com -- of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP said in court papers.
"On July 23, 2014, after receiving the court's order on the motion
and Toyota's subpoena, Ms. Benjaminson authored a post entitled
'How easy is it to hoodwink a judge on technical matters?' in
which she commented . . .  'How do we really know if Judge Selna
is fully apprised and trained or sufficiently advised in
engineering matters to understand and pass judgment on the
validity of the reasons for the technical secrecy?'"

According to Toyota's court papers, Ms. Benjaminson recently
disabled public access to some of the documents on her blogs and
Dropbox accounts, Toyota said.

Parts of the exhibits for Toyota's ex parte application were
redacted.  Toyota said there is good cause to file the court
papers under seal because they involve documents that are
confidential, including an internal comparison of Toyota's
electronic data recorders to those of its competitors.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Reverses Prior Ruling in Drivers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that reversing his
prior ruling, a federal judge on September 4, 2014, said he was
wrong to let out-of-state Uber drivers pursue labor claims under
California law.

"The court now concludes that its earlier holding was in error,
and that the California statutes involved in this action do not
apply extra-territorially," U.S. District Judge Edward Chen wrote.

In explaining his change of opinion, Chen conceded that his 2013
ruling "rested on a fundamental mis-reading" of Gravquick A/S v.
Trimble Nav. Int'l Ltd., a 9th Circuit case that Chen had said
outweighed the presumption against extraterritorial application of
a law where there is a choice of law clause in a contractual
relationship.

"The court in Gravquick did not hold that a California choice of
law provision can overcome the presumption against
extraterritorial application of California law," Chen wrote.
"Instead, the court recognized that parties' agreement to apply
California law must yield in those circumstances where the law in
question contains 'geographical limitations.' "

Chen cited a recent ruling by his colleague in the Northern
District, Judge Vincent Chhabria, who found California law does
not apply to people working exclusively out-of-state.  "Even if
the choice of law provision were intended to confer upon out-of-
state drivers a cause of action for violation of California's wage
and hour laws, it could not do so," Chhabria wrote.  "An employee
cannot create by contract a cause of action that California law
does not provide."

Chhabria went on to say, as quoted on September 4, 2014, by Chen:
"The court concludes that the Labor Code violations upon which
plaintiffs rely do not apply extraterritorially and, therefore,
cannot apply to those plaintiffs or unnamed class members who
worked in states other than California."

California drivers sued Uber in 2013, accusing the taxi-service
app maker of falsely stating that gratuity is included in the
fare, then failing to pass along the full share of tips to which
the drivers claim they are entitled.  The California plaintiffs,
led by Douglas O'Connor and Thomas Colopy, sought to represent
Uber drivers in all states but Massachusetts and Illinois, where
similar claims were brought in 2012.

In his latest ruling, Chen allowed the in-state drivers'
California labor code and Unfair Competition Law claims to
proceed, but nixed the class's breach of implied-in-fact contract
and tortious interference claims.

Because the claimed misrepresentation about the tips being
included in the fare happened before formation of the customer's
business relationship with the driver, "the withholding of the
alleged 'gratuities' would not have been wrongful," Chen said.

The case is Douglas O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. C-13-3826 EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


VERDASYS INC: October 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio on Sept. 4 issued a statement regarding Sanderson
et al. v. Verdasys, Inc. et al., Civil Litigation No. SUCV2012-
00621-BLS1, pursuant to an order by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior Court:

ALAN SANDERSON, DONATO BUCCELLA and MARK SILVERMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

v.

VERDASYS, INC., TORONTO-DOMINION CAPITAL, n/k/a FAIRHAVEN CAPITAL
PARTNERS, LLC, SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III, L.P., SPECIAL
SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS PRIVATE
EQUITY FUND, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS TECHNOLOGY FUND II, L.P.,
VERDASYS INC. INVESTMENT TRUST, VERDASYS INC. SERIES B CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED INVESTMENT TRUST, VERDASYS INC. SERIES C CONVERTIBLE
PREFERRED INVESTMENT TRUST, DANIEL KESHIAN, ADAM STETTNER, HUGH
WARREN, ALLEN MICHELS, and SETH BIRNBAUM, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. SUCV2012-00621-BLS1

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO OWNED THE SECURITIES OF VERDASYS,
INC. ("VERDASYS") AS OF APRIL 8, 2011, AND WERE THEREBY DAMAGED.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Massachusetts
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of

   -- the pendency of this action ("Action") as a class action on
behalf of the persons and entities described above ("Class"),
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Class by definition; and of

   -- a proposed all-cash settlement of the Action in the total
amount of $1.05 million on behalf of all Class members that will
fully and finally settle all claims against and release all
Defendants.

A hearing will be held at the Suffolk County Courthouse, 3
Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108 at 2:00 p.m. on October 21,
2014, (i) to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) to
determine whether the Settled Claims against the Defendants and
other Released Parties should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii)
to determine whether the proposed plan of allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair and reasonable; and (iv) to consider
the application of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel for attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and the application of
Lead Plaintiffs for a Compensatory Award.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
("Notice"), with the attached Claim Form, you may obtain a copy of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: Sanderson,
et al. v. Verdasys, et al. Litigation, c/o Berman DeValerio, One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109, or by telephone at 617-542-
8300.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded
from the Claims Administrator's website, www.BermanDeValerio.com
If you are a Class member, you will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action.  Any objections to any of the proposed
Settlement, the proposed plan of allocation, the request for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, or Lead
Plaintiffs' request for a Compensatory Award, must be filed with
the Court no later than October 7, 2014, and delivered to Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for the Defendants such that they
are received no later than October 8, 2014, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries may be made to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:
Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109 (617) 542-8300 www.BermanDeValerio.com

By Order of the Court


WEBECO FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Alfonso Llanes, Gerardo Gonzalez Garriga, Luis Orlando
Castro and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v.
Webeco Foods, Inc. and Jose Teijeiro, Case No. 1:14-cv-23320-JAL
(S.D. Fla., September 8, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiffs proper overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Webeco Foods, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Dade County.  Jose Teijeiro is a corporate
officer, owner or manager of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


* Philly Favorable for Medical Malpractice Suits, Court Data Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mondics, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that
Philadelphia remains the most favorable jurisdiction in
Pennsylvania for lawyers seeking big payoffs, a maddening fact to
the many physicians and hospitals.  And new data compiled by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court make that point incontrovertibly.

Although Philadelphia accounts for only 12 percent of the state's
population, 40 percent of medical malpractice trials resulting in
verdicts in 2013 took place in the city.  Not only are a
disproportionate number of cases tried here, but the odds are
better for plaintiffs.

Philadelphia plaintiffs won 45 percent of cases tried to verdict
in 2013, more than any other jurisdiction.  In Bucks County, there
were only four medical malpractice cases resulting in verdicts,
and the plaintiffs won none.  In Montgomery, the results were
better for plaintiffs; 19 percent of cases went their way, but
they trailed Philadelphia significantly.

In more than half the state's counties, there were no medical
malpractice verdicts.  That the odds are better for plaintiffs in
Philadelphia helps explain why the upper tier of Philadelphia's
plaintiffs bar live like modern-day Medici -- some are far
wealthier than the corporate defense counsel at so-called white-
shoe law firms they face off against in court.

Yet longer-term trends foretell a less-hospitable climate.  Since
2002, when the state began requiring that malpractice cases be
filed only in the jurisdiction where the injury occurred, cases
have dropped by half statewide.

And after John Herron, administrative judge of the trial division
of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, initiated rule changes
in 2012 designed to restrict filings in Philadelphia by out-of-
state plaintiffs, lawsuits alleging harm from asbestos and
prescription drugs dropped more than two-thirds.  These are
typically complex litigation that can result in huge awards.

The Pennsylvania legislature also sharply restricted the
possibility for recovery in civil cases.  The act requires that
plaintiffs show a defendant is 60 percent or more responsible
before the plaintiff can get any money.  Previously, the threshold
had been much lower.

More change appears to be on the way.

The state Supreme Court issued a potentially game-changing opinion
expanding the circumstances under which a civil defendant in
Philadelphia can ask a trial court to transfer a case to another,
presumably less plaintiff-friendly, jurisdiction.  Trial courts
can consider factors that had been off-limits or restricted, such
as the inconvenience of travel by parties and witnesses to a
trial, in deciding whether to transfer a case.

Philadelphia "is still a challenging jurisdiction,"
Cary Silverman, a lawyer with the corporate defense firm of Shook,
Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.  But, he added, since the rule changes of
2012, "it has been viewed as much more even-handed and moving in
the right direction."

The push to change the rules in civil filings began more than a
decade ago, when lawsuits against hospitals and doctors were
restricted to the county court jurisdictions where the injuries
occurred.  The plaintiffs were also required to provide
certification the lawsuit had merit.  The trend accelerated in
2012, when Mr. Herron, concerned by the growing backlog of out-of-
state cases, instituted rules aimed at cutting back on filings.

No longer would juries decide before a trial what the damages
might be if the corporate defendants were found responsible -- a
practice corporate-defense counsel said added pressure for a
settlement.  Mr. Herron also restricted the bundling of 10 or more
cases for trial at a time, a practice that likely confused juries,
and he limited appearances by out-of-state lawyers.

"My overall goal was to add structure where there had been none,
and to send a bully-pulpit message to discourage out-of-state
litigation," Mr. Herron said.

The results were dramatic.  In 2012, the year the rules were
adopted, the caseload of asbestos and pharmaceutical filings
dropped from a high of 2,690 the year before to 816 in 2012, and
was lower still, at 813, the following year.

The number spiked sharply for the first half of this year -- to
1,074, attributable to a flood of lawsuits involving Risperdal, an
anti-psychotic medication, and other litigation.  But Mr. Herron
said the bump is anomalous and that he expects the trend line to
head back down.

Whether Mr. Herron is right about that will be borne out by
filings and verdict data from the Supreme Court in the years to
come.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Appeal $11-Mil. Garvin Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. plans to appeal the $11 million verdict for Lloyd
Garvin's asbestos-related lawsuit, 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 September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury
in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for
compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants
jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in
the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages
against both other defendants. The Company has filed post-trial
motions seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or
to reduce the damages. The Company plans to pursue an appeal if
necessary.

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 "DeLisle" Suit Is Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from the $1.3 million judgment in Richard
DeLisle's asbestos-related claim is 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 September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. 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: $25MM Verdict Entered Against Crane in NY Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A verdict totaling $25 million was entered against Crane Co. in
two asbestos-related lawsuits pending in New York, 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 June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15
million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and
a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw
claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company
filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to
grant new trials, 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. The Company plans to pursue appeals if
necessary.  The judgment amounts are not included in the Company's
incurred costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the
final payment amount is determined.

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. Resolved 103,000 Claims as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has resolved approximately 103,000 asbestos-related
claims, 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.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the six-month
periods ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 totaled $45.0 million and
$43.1 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the six-month periods
ended June 30, 2014 and 2013 totaled $30.8 million and $28.9
million, respectively.

The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and
cash payments, are not necessarily indicative of future period
amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported.

Cumulatively through June 30, 2014, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 103,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred
by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $415
million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of
approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim
resolved during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011
was $3,300, $6,300 and $4,123, respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved
claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In addition to large group
dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement
amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from
period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos
liability.

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. Had $659-Mil. Fibro Liability
--------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had $695 million liability cover the estimated cost of
asbestos claims, 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.

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc., a nationally recognized expert in the field, to
assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability
in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by the
Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts
paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the
nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant,
the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to
disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A to project
future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's experience
during a base reference period of eleven quarterly periods
(consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and three
additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for claims
filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is then
compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies referred to above),
management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the
various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too
great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future
claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for
years beyond the indicated estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected over the past
five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos
claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and
the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have
both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the
updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven
quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease
category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer and non-
malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In
addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company
also takes into account trends in the tort system such as those
enumerated above. Management considers all these factors in
conjunction with the liability estimate of HR&A and determines
whether a change in the estimate is warranted.

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

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
June 30, 2014, the Company's actual experience during the updated
reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed
generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company
considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate
rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects
on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation,
the Company determined that no change in the estimate was
warranted for the period ended June 30, 2014. Nevertheless, if
certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease,
the liability could change materially; however, all the
assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are
interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining
the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to
and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of
its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the
Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates
beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably
estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $659 million as of June 30, 2014. It is
not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at June 30, 2014 was $88 million
and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs
expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is
based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year
payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

Crane Co. 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: 3M Company Has 2,225 Individual PI Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 2,225 individual asbestos-related
personal injury claimants against 3M Company, 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.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,225 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,200 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2013.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than its historical experience over a decade
ago. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the
past. The Company has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial,
including seven of the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials
occurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an
appellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the
Company. The ninth case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court
at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal
finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence
to support a jury verdict.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit v. 3M Co. Remains Pending in West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit arising from 3M Company's manufacturing of respiratory
protection products remains pending in a West Virginia state
court, 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 State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a
complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers
of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln
County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The
amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory
damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly
incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare
benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis
and unspecified punitive damages. While the case has been inactive
since the fourth quarter of 2007, the court held a case management
conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a
motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and
damages proceedings. A hearing on that motion has not yet been
scheduled. No liability has been recorded for this matter because
the Company believes that liability is not probable and estimable
at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a
possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any meaningful
discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the otherwise
minimal activity in this case and the fact that the complaint
asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a defendant's
share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several
liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might
allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried.

3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Had $129MM Accruals for Fibro Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities
of $129 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 estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company's on-going review of its accruals and
the greater cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,
the Company increased its accruals in the first six months of 2014
for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $21 million, $14
million of which occurred in the second quarter of 2014. In the
first six months of 2014, the Company made payments for fees and
settlements of $19 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos
litigation, $9 million of which occurred in the second quarter of
2014. As of June 30, 2014, the Company had accruals for respirator
mask/asbestos liabilities of $129 million (excluding Aearo
accruals). The Company cannot estimate the amount or range of
amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company
has established because of the (i) inherent difficulty in
projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted,
(ii) the complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple
defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed
to individual defendants so that a defendant's share of liability
may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary
by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the
Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the
several possible developments described above that may occur that
could affect the Company's estimate of liabilities.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$47 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent
case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with
similar claims, and assessment of the nature of each claim and
remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is
likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing
and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in
or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which
insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome
of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect
to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage.

As previously reported, on January 5, 2007 the Company was served
with a declaratory judgment action filed on behalf of two of its
insurers (Continental Casualty and Continental Insurance Co.  --
both part of the Continental Casualty Group) disclaiming coverage
for respirator mask/asbestos claims. The action, in the District
Court in Ramsey County, Minnesota, sought declaratory judgment
regarding coverage provided by the policies and the allocation of
covered costs among the policies issued by the various insurers.
The action named, in addition to the Company, over 60 of the
Company's insurers. The plaintiffs, Continental Casualty and
Continental Insurance Co., as well as a significant number of the
insurer defendants named in the amended complaint were dismissed
because of settlements they had reached with the Company regarding
the matters at issue in the lawsuit. In July 2013, the Company
reached agreements in principle with the remaining insurers in the
lawsuit. All of the settlement agreements have now been executed.
In June 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the case.
During the first six months of 2014, the Company received payments
of $11 million from settlements with insurers, $6 million of which
occurred in the second quarter of 2014.

The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers for
respirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage under
the policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims for
coverage are resolved, the Company will have collected
substantially all of its remaining insurance coverage for
respirator mask/asbestos claims.

3M Company is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Estimates $24-Mil. Aearo Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company's estimate of probable liabilities for Aearo-related
asbestos- and silica-related claims is $24 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.

On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company purchased the stock
of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies
("Aearo"). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including
personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall
and certain respiratory protection products.

As of June 30, 2014, Aearo and/or other companies that previously
owned and operated Aearo's respirator business (American Optical
Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation
("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants,
including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in
which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and
seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal
injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,
has recorded $24 million as the best estimate of the probable
liabilities for product liabilities and defense costs related to
current and future Aearo-related asbestos and silica-related
claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements
and judgments, is currently shared in an informal arrangement
among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary
of Warner Lambert and their insurers (the "Payor Group").
Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of
years each company sold respiratory products under the "AO Safety"
brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical
Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual
plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingent liability is further
limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on
July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays
to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain
responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any
product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica,
or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995.
Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular
respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold,
Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out
of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos,
silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these
arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability is limited to
exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators
involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or
after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the
quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional
claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 period covered by
its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its
participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able
to meet its obligations in these matters.

In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation filed a
lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of
Cabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,
including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'
pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.
In June 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary
judgment on all claims. Cabot has filed a motion for
reconsideration, and Aearo has filed a motion for clarification of
the court's order granting Aearo summary judgment.

Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo's
liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:
(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)
significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,
(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,
(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the
law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant
changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,
(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group
including exhaustion of available coverage limits, and/or (ix) a
determination that the interpretation of the contractual
obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is
inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these
potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo's share of
liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the
developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of
these liabilities for existing and future claims could be
significantly larger than the amount accrued.

Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of
claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of
allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,
and the several possible developments that may occur that could
affect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liability
may exceed the accrual the Company has established.

3M Company (3M) is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. In September 2012, it acquired the business of
Federal Signal Technologies Group (FSTech) from Federal Signal
Corporation. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 2,300 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 2,200 lawsuits pending against Pentair
plc subsidiaries, according to according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2014.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of June 28, 2014, there were approximately 2,200 lawsuits
pending against our subsidiaries. A lawsuit might include several
claims, and we have approximately 2,300 claims outstanding as of
June 28, 2014. This amount is not adjusted for claims that are not
actively being prosecuted, identified incorrect defendants, or
duplicated other actions, which would ultimately reflect our
current estimate of the number of viable claims made against us,
our affiliates or entities for which we assumed responsibility in
connection with acquisitions or divestitures. In addition, the
amount does not include certain claims pending against third
parties for which we have been provided an indemnification."

Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its
customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and
equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures
solutions for its products, services and technologies related to
food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in
the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures
technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and
for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow
Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves
and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and
desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics
protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and
crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems,
food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and
irrigation management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Estimates Fibro Liability at $253MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was
$252.6 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 28, 2014.

The Company states: "Periodically, we perform an analysis with the
assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our
estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of
the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $252.6
million and $254.7 million as of June 28, 2014 and December 31,
2013, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $118.6 million and $119.6
million as of June 28, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively,
and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."

Pentair plc provides products, services and solutions for its
customers' needs in water and other fluids, thermal management and
equipment protection. The Company invents and manufactures
solutions for its products, services and technologies related to
food, water or energy. The Company serves a range of customers in
the food and beverage, residential and commercial, industrial,
infrastructure, and energy sectors. It designs and manufactures
technologies for the separation of solids, liquids, and gases, and
for the treatment of water and steam. Its segments include Flow
Technologies, Technical Solutions, Process Technologies and Valves
and Controls. The Company's solutions include filtration and
desalination, aquaculture systems, communications and electronics
protection, controls and electrical protection, crop spray and
crop protection, dewatering, flood water and wastewater systems,
food and processing, foodservice, industrial heat tracing, and
irrigation management.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,087 PI Cases as of June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation was a party to 1,087 pending cases alleging
personal injury due to asbestos exposure, 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.

As of June 30, 2014, the Company was a party to 1,087 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,985 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,985 claims pending at
June 30, 2014, 104 set forth specific amounts of damages (other
than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum).

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all
asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years
ago, have been approximately $6.7 million. All relief sought in
the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately
40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of
asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.
Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to
the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following
exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during
which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and
indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the
scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and results of
operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation (Trimas) is a manufacturer and distributor of
products for commercial, industrial and consumer markets. The
Company operates in six segments: Packaging, Energy, Aerospace &
Defense, Engineered Components, Cequent Asia Pacific and Cequent
North America. In March 2014, the Company acquired acquired the
remaining 30% interest of Arminak & Associates LLC. On July 25,
2014, the Company acquired Lion Holdings Pvt. Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Has 17,500 Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 17,500 asbestos-related claims against
BorgWarner Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies who have
historically operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the
Company is obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of
many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. We
believe that the Company's involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of June 30, 2014
and December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately 17,500 and
17,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims,
respectively. Of the approximately 17,500 outstanding claims at
June 30, 2014, approximately half were pending in jurisdictions
that have undergone significant tort and judicial reform
activities subsequent to the filing of these claims.

"The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2014, of the approximately 1,000
claims resolved, 229 (23%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2013,
of the approximately 1,500 claims resolved, 297 (20%) resulted in
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

"Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

"Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

"To date, the Company has paid and accrued $311.3 million in
defense and indemnity in advance of insurers' reimbursement and
has received $124.8 million in cash and notes from insurers. The
net balance of $186.5 million, is expected to be fully recovered,
of which approximately $20.0 million is expected to be recovered
within one year. Timing of recovery is dependent on final
resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to above or
additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2013, insurers
owed $153.6 million in association with these claims.

"In addition to the $186.5 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $112.4 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at June 30, 2014. The
Company also has a related asset of $112.4 million to recognize
proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected to be
fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected prior
to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action referred to
above, which, more-likely-than-not, will occur subsequent to June
30, 2015. At December 31, 2013, the comparable value of the
accrued liability and associated insurance asset was $96.7
million.

"The 2014 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity.

"The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any,
in excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot
predict how many additional claims may be brought against the
Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in
the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes,
or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at
the state or federal levels."

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. continues to defend itself against a lawsuit filed
by insurers relating to the Company's insurance coverage for
asbestos-related defense costs and liabilities, 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.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarners's Appeal in PI Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc.'s appeal from a jury verdict in an asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was
non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if
the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed this verdict. The
Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the
appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending
litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
possible loss, if any, that could result from this action.

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quaker Chemical Corporation continues to defend itself against
numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978
sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an
installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits
alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary
discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other
than the proceeds from insurance settlements received. To date,
the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of
without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against
the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and
anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently
projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50
years for these claims is approximately $2,700,000, (excluding
costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a
defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively
pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed
to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against
the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's
primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all
defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against
the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims
up to the aggregate limits of the policies. A significant portion
of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that
is now insolvent, and the other primary insurers have asserted
that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted.
The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the
claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of
the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release
agreements with the subsidiary in late 2005 and early 2007 for
$15,000,000 and $20,000,000 respectively. The proceeds of both
settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and
costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos
litigation. During the third quarter of 2007, the subsidiary and
the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim
Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier will pay
27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the
subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims for a
minimum of five years beginning July 1, 2007. The agreement
continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either
party by providing the other party with a minimum of two years
prior written notice. As of June 30, 2014, no notice of
termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the
term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue
its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the
policy limits. The Company also believes that, if the coverage
issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are
resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds
were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage
from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency
of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless,
liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and
coverage available to the subsidiary.

Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and
markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).
The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process
chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking
process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings
segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and
concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other
chemical products segment includes other various chemical
products. In July 2012, the Company acquired NP Coil Dexter
Industries S.r.l. In July 2014, Quaker Chemical Corp acquired the
remaining 49% ownership interest in its Australian affiliate,
Quaker Chemical (Australasia) Pty. Limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace To Pay $632-Mil. to End PI Trust Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. has agreed to pay $632,000,000 in cash in
exchange for the termination of its deferred payment agreement
with the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated August 1, 2014, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2014.

On February 3, 2014, the joint plan of reorganization of W. R.
Grace & Co., and its debtor subsidiaries, became effective. In
connection with the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, Grace entered
into an agreement with the Asbestos Personal Injury Future
Claimants' Representative, the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants and certain other parties to establish
the WRG Asbestos PI Trust.

On the Effective Date: (i) Grace's principal subsidiary, W. R.
Grace & Co.-Conn., entered into the Deferred Payment Agreement
with the PI Trust that provides for deferred payments to the PI
Trust of $110 million per year for five years beginning in 2019,
and $100 million per year for 10 years beginning in 2024; and (ii)
Grace entered into: (A) the W. R. Grace & Co. Guarantee Agreement
with the PI Trust under which Grace guarantees Grace-Conn.'s
obligations under the Deferred Payment Agreement (PI) and (B) the
Share Issuance Agreement with the PI Trust and the WRG Asbestos PD
Trust, which agreement secures Grace's obligations under the
Guarantee Agreement (PI) and to the PD Trust by obligating Grace
to issue 77,372,257 shares of Grace common stock in the event of
default of such obligations.

On August 1, 2014, Grace, Grace-Conn. and the PI Trust entered
into an Obligation Termination Agreement to terminate all of the
obligations of Grace and Grace-Conn. under the Deferred Payment
Agreement (PI), the Guarantee (PI), and, as applicable to the PI
Trust, the Share Issuance Agreement, for a cash payment of
$632,000,000 to be paid by Grace-Conn. at the closing, with the
payment guaranteed by Grace. The closing of the transactions set
forth in the Termination Agreement will be no later than three
business days after Grace receives the proceeds of a debt
financing to fund the Consideration, but in no event later than
October 31, 2014. Grace's obligation to consummate the
transactions is not subject to the receipt of the proceeds of any
financing. The Termination Agreement contains customary
representations, warranties, covenants and conditions to closing;
mutual releases of obligations under the Deferred Payment
Agreement (PI), the Guarantee (PI), and, as applicable to the PI
Trust, the Share Issuance Agreement; and mutual indemnification
obligations for breaches of representations, warranties and
covenants.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIRCOR Subsidiaries Continue to Defend PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of CIRCOR International, Inc., continues to defend
themselves against asbestos-related product liability claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 29, 2014.

The Company states: "Asbestos-related product liability claims
continue to be filed against two of our subsidiaries Spence
Engineering Company, Inc., the stock of which we acquired in 1984;
and Circor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc. (f/k/a Hoke
Incorporated), the stock of which we acquired in 1998. Due to the
nature of the products supplied by these entities, the markets
they serve and our historical experience in resolving these
claims, we do not believe that these asbestos-related claims will
have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results
of operations or liquidity of Spence or Hoke, or our financial
condition, consolidated results of operations or liquidity of the
Company."

CIRCOR International, Inc. designs , manufactures and markets
valves and other engineered products and sub-systems used in the
energy, aerospace, power generation and other industrial markets.
The Company has a global presence and operates 24 primary
manufacturing facilities that are located in the United States,
Canada, Western Europe, Morocco, India, Brazil and the People's
Republic of China. The Company has three reporting segments:
Energy, Aerospace and flows Technologies. As of December 31, 2012
, the Company's products were sold through over 900 distributors
and the Company serviced more than 7,500 customers in over 100
countries around the world. Within the Company's product groups
The Company develops, manufactures, sells and service a portfolio
of fluid-control products, sub-systems and technologies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Has 6,900 Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 6,900 asbestos-related claims filed
against a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc., according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "One of our subsidiaries, Fairmont Supply
Company (Fairmont), which distributes industrial supplies,
currently is named as a defendant in approximately 6,900 asbestos-
related claims in state courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Maryland, Texas and Illinois. Because a very small
percentage of products manufactured by third parties and supplied
by Fairmont in the past may have contained asbestos, and since
many of the pending claims are asserted against dozens of
defendants in any given action, it has been difficult for Fairmont
to determine how many of the pending cases actually involve valid
claims or plaintiffs who were actually exposed to asbestos-
containing products supplied by Fairmont. In addition, while
Fairmont may be entitled to indemnity or contribution in certain
jurisdictions from manufacturers of identified products, the
availability of such indemnity or contribution is unclear at this
time, and in recent years, some of the manufacturers named as
defendants in these actions have sought protection from these
claims under bankruptcy laws. Fairmont has no insurance coverage
with respect to these asbestos cases. Based on nearly 20 years of
experience with this litigation, we have established an accrual to
cover our estimated liability for these cases. This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheets. Past payments by Fairmont with respect to asbestos
cases have not been material."

CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL Energy) is a producer of coal and
natural gas for global energy and raw material markets, which
include the electric power generation industry and the steelmaking
industry. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company
produced 62.6 million tons of high-British thermal unit (Btu)
bituminous coal from 12 mining complexes in the United States. In
addition, it provides energy services, including river and dock
services, terminal services, industrial supply services, coal
waste disposal services and land resource management services. The
Company operates in two segments: Coal and Gas. In December 2013,
the Company announced that it has completed the sale of
Consolidation Coal Company (CCC) subsidiary, which includes all
five of its longwall coal mines in West Virginia, to a subsidiary
of Murray Energy Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Inc.'s Maremont Had 5,800 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 5,800 asbestos-related claims against
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, Maremont Corporation, 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.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products. Maremont had approximately 5,800 and
5,400 pending asbestos-related claims at June 30, 2014 and
September 30, 2013, respectively. Although Maremont has been named
in these cases, in the cases where actual injury has been alleged,
very few claimants have established that a Maremont product caused
their injuries. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even
hundreds of defendants in individual lawsuits on behalf of
hundreds or thousands of claimants, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, Maremont does not consider the number of claims
filed or the damages alleged to be a meaningful factor in
determining its asbestos-related liability.

Maremont engages Bates White LLC, a consulting firm with extensive
experience estimating costs associated with asbestos litigation,
to assist with determining the estimated cost of resolving pending
and future asbestos-related claims that have been, and could
reasonably be expected to be, filed against Maremont. Bates White
prepares these cost estimates annually in September. Although it
is not possible to estimate the full range of costs because of
various uncertainties, Bates White advised Maremont that it would
be possible to determine an estimate of a reasonable forecast of
the cost of the probable settlement and defense costs of resolving
pending and future asbestos-related claims, based on historical
data and certain assumptions with respect to events that may occur
in the future.

Bates White provided a reasonable and probable estimate that
consisted of a range of equally likely possibilities of Maremont's
obligation for asbestos personal injury claims over the next ten
years of $73 million to $80 million. Management recognized a
liability of $73 million as of June 30, 2014 and September 30,
2013, as the probable liability for pending and future claims over
the next ten years. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and
future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and
expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions
with an established history with Maremont. Historically, Maremont
has recognized incremental insurance receivables associated with
recoveries expected for asbestos-related liabilities as the
estimate of asbestos-related liabilities for pending and future
claim changes. Maremont currently expects to exhaust the limits of
its settled insurance coverage prior to the end of the ten-year
forecasted liability period. Maremont believes it has additional
insurance coverage; however, certain carriers have disputed
coverage under policies they issued (see "Recoveries" below).
Because no insurance receivable is currently recognized for these
policies in dispute, Maremont recognized a $9 million charge in
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013 associated with its annual
valuation of asbestos-related liabilities. If Maremont is unable
to recognize recoveries from disputed policies, it is reasonably
possible that the annual valuation could result in a charge to be
recognized in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014.

The following assumptions were made by Maremont after consultation
with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2023. The ten-year assumption is considered
appropriate as Maremont has reached certain longer-term agreements
with key plaintiff law firms, and filings of mesothelioma claims
have been relatively stable over the last few years;

* Maremont believes that the litigation environment may change
significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will likely decline for
each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a
probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will
be at the level consistent with Maremont's prior experience;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiffs' law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Maremont cannot be reasonably estimated.

Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims. The
insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities is
$58 million as of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013. The
receivable at June 30, 2014 is for coverage provided by two
insurance carriers based on coverage in place agreements. Maremont
currently expects to exhaust the remaining limits provided by this
coverage sometime in the next ten years. Maremont maintained
insurance coverage with other insurance carriers that management
believes covers indemnity and defense costs. Maremont has incurred
liabilities allocable to these policies but has not yet billed
these insurance carriers, and no receivable has been recorded for
disputed policies. During fiscal year 2013, Maremont reinitiated a
lawsuit against these carriers, seeking a declaration of its
rights to insurance for asbestos claims and to facilitate an
orderly and timely collection of insurance proceeds. The
difference between the estimated liability and insurance
receivable is primarily related to proceeds received from settled
insurance policies and claims for which coverage under Maremont's
insurance policies is in dispute with the insurer. Certain
insurance policies have been settled in cash prior to the ultimate
settlement of the related asbestos liabilities. Amounts received
from insurance settlements generally reduce recorded insurance
receivables.

The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts. All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict. The future litigation environment for Maremont could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example,
to changes in the mix of claims filed against Maremont in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; Maremont's approach to defending claims;
or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants. Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and
the continuing solvency of various insurance companies. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of
pending and future claims, the cost to resolve claims and the
amount of available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual
amount of liability for Maremont's asbestos-related claims, and
the effect on the company, could differ materially from current
estimates and, therefore, could have a material impact on the
company's financial condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Has 2,800 Rockwell Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 2,800 claims arising from exposure to
asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell products,
according to Meritor, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 29, 2014.

ArvinMeritor, Inc., a subsidiary of Meritor, along with many other
companies, has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos used in
certain components of Rockwell products many years ago. Liability
for these claims was transferred at the time of the spin-off of
the automotive business from Rockwell in 1997. At June 30, 2014
and September 30, 2013, there were approximately 2,800 and 2,600,
respectively, pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name
AM, together with many other companies, as defendants. A
significant portion of the claims do not identify any of
Rockwell's products or specify which of the claimants, if any,
were exposed to asbestos attributable to Rockwell's products, and
past experience has shown that the vast majority of the claimants
will likely never identify any of Rockwell's products.
Historically, AM has been dismissed from the vast majority of
similar claims filed in the past with no payment to claimants. For
those claimants who do show that they worked with Rockwell's
products, management nevertheless believes it has meritorious
defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products
involved and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. For these reasons, the company does not
consider the number of claims filed or the damages alleged to be a
meaningful factor in determining asbestos-related liabilities.

The company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company. As
of September 30, 2013, Bates White provided a reasonable and
probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely
possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal
injury claims over the next ten years of $40 million to $45
million. Management recognized a liability of $40 million as of
June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, as the probable liability
for pending and future claims over the next ten years. The company
is experiencing higher-than-expected defense costs in the first
nine months of fiscal year 2014. Therefore, the next annual
valuation at September 30, 2014 may result in an increased
obligation estimate. The ultimate cost of resolving pending and
future claims is estimated based on the history of claims and
expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in jurisdictions
with an established history with Rockwell.

The following assumptions were made by the company after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

* Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year period
ending in fiscal year 2023. The ten-year assumption is considered
appropriate as Rockwell has reached certain longer-term agreements
with key plaintiff law firms, and filings of mesothelioma claims
have been relatively stable over the last few years;

* The company believes that the litigation environment may change
significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will likely decline for
each year further in the future. As a result, estimating a
probable liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

* Defense and processing costs for pending and future claims will
be at the level consistent with the company's longer-term
experience and will not have the significant volatility
experienced in the recent years;

* Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

* The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated.

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
is $13 million at June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013. Included
in these amounts are insurance receivables of $9 million at June
30, 2014 and September 30, 2013 that are associated with policies
in dispute. Rockwell maintained insurance coverage that management
believes covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-
insurance retentions, for most of these claims. The company shares
these policies with two other nonrelated companies. The three
companies have collectively initiated claims against certain of
these carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are in
various stages of the litigation process. Rockwell expects to
recover some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has
incurred to date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some
portion of the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward.
The amounts recognized for policies in dispute are based on
consultation with advisors, status of settlement negotiations with
certain insurers, expected rights of the nonrelated companies, and
underlying analysis performed by management. The remaining un-
disputed receivable recognized is related to coverage provided by
one carrier based on an insurance agreement in place. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor) is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepco Unit Continues to Defend Take-Home Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a so-
called take-home lawsuit, 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.

In September 2011, an asbestos complaint was filed in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, against ACE (among other
defendants) asserting claims under New Jersey's Wrongful Death and
Survival statutes. The complaint, filed by the estate of a
decedent who was the wife of a former employee of ACE, alleges
that the decedent's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to
asbestos brought home by her husband on his work clothes. New
Jersey courts have recognized a cause of action against a premise
owner in a so-called "take home" case if it can be shown that the
harm was foreseeable. In this case, the complaint seeks recovery
of an unspecified amount of damages for, among other things, the
decedent's past medical expenses, loss of earnings, and pain and
suffering between the time of injury and death, and asserts a
punitive damage claim. At June 30, 2014, ACE has concluded that a
loss is probable with respect to this matter and has recorded an
estimated loss contingency liability, which is included in the
liability for general litigation totaling approximately $32
million as of June 30, 2014. However, due to the inherent
uncertainty of litigation, ACE is unable to estimate a maximum
amount of possible loss because the damages sought are
indeterminate and the matter involves facts that ACE believes are
distinguishable from the facts of the "take-home" cause of action
recognized by the New Jersey courts.

Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI) is a holding company, that, through
regulated public utility subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas (Power Delivery):
Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), Delmarva Power & Light
Company (DPL) and Atlantic City Electric Company (ACE). As of
December 31, 2012, the Company segments include Power Delivery,
consisting of the operations of Pepco, DPL and ACE, engaged in the
transmission, distribution and default supply of electricity and
the distribution and supply of natural gas, Pepco Energy Services
and Other Non-Regulated, consisting primarily of the operations of
PCI. PHI Service Company, a subsidiary service company of PHI,
provides a range of support services, including legal, accounting,
treasury, tax, purchasing and information technology services, to
PHI and its operating subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 65,000 Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had 65,000 asbestos claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland that
was acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. To assist in
developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for
future asbestos claims and related costs given various
assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates,
Inc. (HR&A). The methodology used by HR&A to project future
asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including
claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enacted
legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claim
experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the
results of previously conducted third party epidemiological
studies estimating the number of people likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities
and receivables are recorded within the discontinued operations
caption in the Statements of Consolidated Comprehensive Income.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements
and number of open claims can fluctuate significantly from period
to period. For the nine-months ended June 30, 2014, Ashland had
65,000 asbestos claims, excluding those related to Hercules.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January
2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland,
which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October
2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July
2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint
venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to
investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $443-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. reported that total reserves for asbestos claims were
$443 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.

Ashland records the amount it believes to be the best estimate of
future payments for litigation defense and claim settlement costs,
which generally approximates the mid-point of the estimated range
of exposure from model results. Ashland reviews this estimate and
related assumptions quarterly and annually updates the results of
a non-inflated, non-discounted approximate 50-year model developed
with the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.  As
a result of the most recent annual update of this estimate,
completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was determined that the
liability for asbestos claims should be increased by $4 million.
Total reserves for asbestos claims were $443 million at June 30,
2014 compared to $463 million at September 30, 2013.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January
2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland,
which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October
2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July
2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint
venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to
investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $408MM Insurance Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and
claim settlement costs from insurers, in connection with its
asbestos claims, amounted to $408 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.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. Approximately 67% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,
all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2014. The
remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance
companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings, and
from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy obligations
have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity. Ashland
discounts this piece of the receivable based upon the projected
timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless likely
settlement amounts can be determined.

In October 2012, Ashland initiated arbitration proceedings against
Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain London companies and Chartis (AIG
member) companies seeking to enforce these insurers' contractual
obligations to provide indemnity for asbestos liabilities and
defense costs under existing coverage-in-place agreements. In
addition, Ashland has initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court
against certain Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity
Company and Resolute Management Inc.) on grounds that these
Berkshire entities have wrongfully interfered with these insurers'
performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide
asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay
certain claim payments. While Ashland anticipates its position
will be supported by the proceedings, an adverse resolution of
these proceedings could have a significant effect on the timing of
loss reimbursement and the amount of Ashland's recorded insurance
receivables from these insurers.

At June 30, 2014, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $408 million, of which $102 million relates to costs
previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $408
million at September 30, 2013. During the June 2014 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve described above, and its impact on valuation of
future recoveries from insurers, was completed. This model update
resulted in a $7 million increase in the receivable for probable
insurance recoveries.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January
2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland,
which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October
2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July
2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint
venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to
investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Had 21,000 Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had 21,000
asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, is also subject to
liabilities from asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits
involving claims which typically arise from alleged exposure to
asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products
which were sold by one of Hercules' former subsidiaries to a
limited industrial market.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing
of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. For the Nine-Months Ended
June 30, 2014, Hercules had 21,000 asbestos claims.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January
2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland,
which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October
2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July
2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint
venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to
investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Unit Had $333MM Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, had a total of $333 million
total reserves for asbestos claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be increased by $10 million. Total reserves for asbestos
claims were $333 million at June 30, 2014 compared to $342 million
at September 30, 2013.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January
2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland,
which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October
2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July
2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint
venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to
investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland's Hercules Had $77MM Fibro Receivables
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s subsidiary, Hercules, has receivables from insurers
amounting to $77 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.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursements pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements with
insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an
assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The
estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of
the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit
rating of B+ or higher as of June 30, 2014.

As of June 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, the receivables from
insurers amounted to $77 million and $75 million, respectively.
During the June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used
for purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This
model update caused a $3 million increase in the receivable for
probable insurance recoveries.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity
of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies
that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for
Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of
possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these
estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost
models was developed. These models are based on national studies
that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos-
related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions
regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and
legal defense costs, as well as other variables. Ashland has
currently estimated in various models ranging from approximately
40 to 50 year periods that it is reasonably possible that total
future litigation defense and claim settlement costs on an
inflated and undiscounted basis could range as high as
approximately $870 million for the Ashland asbestos-related
litigation and approximately $670 million for the Hercules
asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.5 billion in the
aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected
in the various models. If actual experience is worse than
projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of
alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to
resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the
estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these
increases could be material over time.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a global specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions throughout a variety of
industries. Ashland's business operates in four segments: Ashland
Specialty Ingredients; Ashland Water Technologies; Ashland
Performance Materials and Ashland Consumer Markets. In January
2012, Celanese Corporation acquired certain assets from Ashland,
which include two product lines, Vinac and Flexbond. In October
2012, the Company had set up a specialties technical research and
development centre in Mumbai to support producers of personal and
home care products in India and southeast Asia. In April 2013,
JANA Partners LLC acquired a 7.361% stake in Ashland Inc. In July
2014, Ashland Inc and Clariant completed the sale of their joint
venture, ASK Chemicals GmbH headquartered in Hilden, Germany, to
investment funds affiliated with Rhone, a London.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Rule on Suit by Family
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reported that the
California Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a former Bay
Area man who is dying of an asbestos-related cancer can sue a
company that employed his uncle, who used to come home with his
clothes covered in asbestos dust.

A state appeals court had ruled in May that Johnny Kesner,
diagnosed in 2011 with a terminal form of mesothelioma commonly
caused by asbestos, could sue his uncle's former employer, Abex,
which made brake linings filled with asbestos.

While an employer isn't responsible for harm suffered by everyone
who comes in contact with its employees, the First District Court
of Appeal said, a company that uses a toxic substance like
asbestos must take reasonable steps to protect a worker's
household members who are likely to be exposed.

Abex appealed that ruling, and the state's high court voted
unanimously Wednesday to take it up and decide the scope of an
employer's duty to members of its workers' families. The court
also agreed to review a second asbestos case, in which a lower
court had dismissed a suit by a cancer victim whose husband, a
railroad worker, had asbestos on his work clothes. No hearing date
has been scheduled.

Kesner, a truck driver, said in his lawsuit that he often spent
two or three nights a week at his uncle's West Virginia home as a
teenager, and remembered his uncle showing up in asbestos-covered
work clothes.

The suit said Abex had a pamphlet -- which it didn't distribute to
its employees -- warning about the dangers of bringing work
clothes home.

The suit was filed in Alameda County, where Kesner formerly lived
and claimed asbestos exposure from other sources. Superior Court
Judge John True dismissed his suit against Abex, agreeing with the
company that any duty it owed to its employees to protect them
from hazardous conditions didn't extend to their households. The
appeals court overturned his decision.

The issue has divided California appellate courts. Another court
rejected a cancer patient's asbestos suit in 2012 and said
allowing claims by an employee's family members would greatly
increase the employer's insurance costs, which it would pass on to
consumers.

The Supreme Court cases are Kesner vs. Superior Court, S219534,
and Haver vs. BNSF Railroad, S219919.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Allows Plaintiff to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, issued an order dated
Aug. 20, 2014, granting a plaintiff in an asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit to amend her complaint and denying certain
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint as moot, allowing
them instead to refile their motions to dismiss upon the filing of
the amended complaint.

The case is ELAINE MOHLER, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1221-DGW-SCW
(S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision
is available at http://is.gd/GXICX0from Leagle.com.

Elaine Mohler, Plaintiff, represented by Ross D. Stomel, Shrader &
Associates LLP & Allyson Michelle Romani, Shrader & Associates
LLP.

A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Curtis R. Picou, Crivello Carlson Picou &
Andrekanic LLC.

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

Allied Manufacturing, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, Kernell Law Firm,
P.C..

Ameron International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented
by Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Carla C. Storm, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Atlantic Richfield Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Howard J. Pikel, Pretzel & Stouffer.

Aurora Pump Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

AWC 1997 Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by David J.
Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

Bird Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Raymond R.
Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al..

Borg-Wagner 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 Amoco Chemical Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Howard
J. Pikel, Esq. -- hpikel@pretzel-stouffer.com -- at Pretzel &
Stouffer.

BP Corporation North America, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Howard J. Pikel, Pretzel & Stouffer.

BP Products North America, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Burnham, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
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., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

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

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Robert T. Varney.

Cleaver-Brooks, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Meredith S Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Mark G. Zellmer, Husch
Blackwell LLP.

Conwed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by 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.

Copes-Vulcan, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
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.

Crane Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.

Crane Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Noel
L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom
LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen J.
Maassen, Hoagland, Fitzgerald & Pranaitis.

Dap, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Madeline
Victoria Tzall, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Brown & James.

Eaton Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by J. Todd
Applegate, Pitzer Snodgrass PC & Brian J. Connolly, Pitzer
Snodgrass PC.

Exxonmobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by H. Patrick
Morris, Johnson & Bell & David F. Fanning, Johnson & Bell LTD.
Flowserve U.S., Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..
Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP, Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Gallop, Johnson et al..

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz
LLC &Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski, Bailey et al..

Gould's Pumps, Inc., Defendant and Cross 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, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

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

ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP & Undray
Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz
LLC &Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski, Bailey et al..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C..

Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David
L. Szlanfucht, Rasmussen, Willis et al..

KCG, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David J.
Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

McNally Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.
Meadwestvaco Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

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

Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John
M. Ward, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins,
Parnell et al..

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP
& Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al..

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.

Pharmacia Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Jordan T.
Ault, Husch Blackwell LLP.

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

Research Cottrell, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David J.
Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

RIC-WIL, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Riley Stoker Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Rogers Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Madeline
Victoria Tzall, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Allison K.
Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli
PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

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 Jonathan M. Lively, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Simpson Timber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael W.
Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, 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.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joseph A Kilpatrick, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Sunoco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph
A Kilpatrick, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Texaco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Robert
T. Varney.

The Dow Chemical Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

The WM. Powell Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP &Michael W.
Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Thermwell Products Co., Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Nicholas B
Bunnell, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

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.
URS Energy & Construction, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented
by Kenneth M. Burke, Brown & James.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

Weil McLain, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley
R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP
& Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

York International Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented
by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog
Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rule 5(c)(1)(B) Motion in PI Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois issued an order dated
Aug. 21, 2014, granting a motion filed by a defendant in an
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit under Rule 5(c)(1)(B) of
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.  Rule 5(c)(1)(B) 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.

The case is HOWARD H. MORRICAL, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS COPCO
COMPRESSORS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-52-DGW-
SCW (S.D. Ill).  A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's
decision is available at http://is.gd/yQKBuifrom Leagle.com.

Howard H. Morrical, Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr.,
Vinson Law & Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC.

Atlas Copco Compressors, L.L.C., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Amy Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert
Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson & Bell.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Robert S. Sanderson, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Daniel G.
Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw &
Culbertson,Daniel W. McGrath, 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.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Mark E. Winters, Esq. -- MWinters@SanchezDH.com -- Sanchez,
Daniels & Hoffman, LLP.

Foster Wheeler, L.L.C., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bradley R. Bultman, 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.

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.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

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.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns
L.L.C..

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

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere,
Schiff Hardin LLP & Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al..

Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC &Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

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.

Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Dropped as Defendant in PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Pecher filed claims against defendants arising out of her
late husband Urban Pecher's exposure to asbestos and a related
disease, malignant mesothelioma.  Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company,
the former owner of a door manufacturing plant where Urban Pecher
worked and asbestos fireproofing products were produced, moves for
judgment on the pleadings on the claims brought against it as
barred by Wisconsin's Workers' Compensation Act.  Judge William M.
Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin granted the Defendant's motion for the reasons set forth
in its opinion and order in Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 14cv-286
(W.D. Wis. Aug. 22, 2014).  Count III and IV of the Plaintiff's
first amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice and defendant
Weyerhaeuser is dismissed from the action.

The case is JANET PECHER, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-147-WMC
(S.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision dated
Aug. 22, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Moz8jvfrom
Leagle.com.

Janet Pecher, 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 and Cross Defendant, represented by Edward
J. McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily
Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by William P. Croke, Esq. --
bcroke@vonbriesen.com -- at 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, Esq. -- scoley@gklaw.com -- at and Joshua Lee
Johanningmeier, Esq. -- jjohanningmeier@gklaw.com -- at Godfrey &
Kahn S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duro Dyne's Bid to Junk "Proctor" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Duro Dyne
Corporation moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
and all cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that the
plaintiffs have failed to show that any of the Duro Dyne products
plaintiff James Proctor allegedly encountered actually contained
asbestos.  Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New
York County, in a decision and order dated Aug. 21, 2014, denied
Duro Dyne's motion for summary judgment, holding that the
defendant's argument is more appropriately made to the trier of
fact.

The case is JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR and JOY C. PROCTOR, Plaintiffs,
v. ALCOA, INC., et al, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190040/13, MOTION
SEQ. NO. 008 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/T7KaLJfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Dropped as Defendant in 2 PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
In two civil actions relating to asbestos exposure and asbestos-
related disease as a result of that exposure, Judge William M.
Conley granted motions filed by defendants Weyerhaeuser Company
and Owens-Illinois Company for the reasons set forth in Boyer v.
Weyerhaeuser, No. 14-cv-286 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 22, 2014).

In the first action, plaintiff Virginia Prust filed claims against
the defendants arising out of her late husband Valmore Prust's
exposure to asbestos and resulting lung cancer and asbestosis.  In
the second action, plaintiffs Roger and Janice Seehafer bring
claims against defendants arising out of Roger's exposure to
asbestos and a related disease, malignant mesothelioma.

In both actions, Weyerhaeuser, the former owner of a door
manufacturing plant where Valmore Prust and Roger Seehafer worked
and asbestos fireproofing products were produced, moves for
judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the claims brought
against it are barred by Wisconsin's Workers' Compensation Act.
Owens-Illinois seeks dismissal of product liability claims
premised on Owens-Illinois' licensing of a patent claiming a
fireproof door.

Judge Conley ordered that Counts III and IV of the Plaintiffs'
first amended complaint are dismissed with prejudice and defendant
Weyerhaeuser is dismissed from the action.  Judge Conley also
ordered that Counts I and II of the Plaintiff's first amended
complaint premised on Owens-Illinois's role as a licensor are
dismissed with prejudice; and that the Plaintiff may have until
Sept. 22, 2014, to file an amended complaint asserting claims
against Owens-Illinois as the manufacturer of Kaylo door cores,
assuming they can do so in good faith.

The first case is VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-143-WMC
(W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision in the
Prust case is available at http://is.gd/STskywfrom Leagle.com.

The second case is ROGER SEEHAFER and JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NO.
14-CV-161-WMC (W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Conley's
Decision in the Seehafer case is available at http://is.gd/XhePQ2
from Leagle.com.

Virginia Prust, 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..

Janice Seehafer and Roger Seehafer, 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
Joshua Lee Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C. & Sherry Dawn
Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in Pa. PI Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy R. Smith, Executrix of the Estate of Paul A. Rowland,
Deceased, appeals from the orders granting summary judgment in
favor of Ford Motor Company and Borg-Warner Corporation.  The
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated Aug. 27, 2014,
affirmed the lower court's decision.

The appeals case is AMY R. SMITH, Executrix of the Estate of Paul
A. Rowland, Deceased, Appellant, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC,
INDIVIDUALLY AND OWNER OF AND/OR PARENT OF AND/OR SUCCESSOR TO
AND/OR F/K/A MINI, BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND
SUBSIDIARY OF AND/OR PARENT OF AND/OR A/K/A AND/OR F/K/A BORG &
BECK, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF ALLIED SIGNAL,
INC., SUCCESSOR TO BENDIX CORPORATION AND BENDIX MINTEX PTY, LTD.,
JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ITS
PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS, PRESENT AND/OR FORMER PARENTS,
SUBSIDIARIES AND/OR DIVISIONS, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., THE PEP
BOYS  --  MANNY, MOE & JACK, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, SUCCESSOR-IN-
INTEREST TO ABEX CORPORATION AND QUAKER CITY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY,
Appellees, NO. 3352 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.).

A full-text copy of the Pennsylvania Superior Court's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/G1wxkMfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Smith" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff, the heir of decedent Ronald Smith, Sr., who was alleged
to have died as a result of exposure to asbestos, filed a motion
to remand her action to a Missouri state court, arguing that the
removal of the case by defendant Boeing Company was untimely.
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, agreed with the
Plaintiff and granted the motion to remand.

The case is BIRLIE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BOEING AEROSPACE
OPERATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14CV1200 CDP
(E.D. Mo.).  A full-text copy of Judge Perry's memorandum and
order of remand dated Aug. 19, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/O7auuyfrom Leagle.com.

Birlie Smith, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented
by Benjamin R. Schmickle, SWMK LAW, Matthew C. Morris, SWMK LAW,
LLC & Stephanie L. Gold, SWMK LAW.

Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

BP Amoco Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Lizabeth M. Conran, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Brand Insulations Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC & Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

BTL Specialty Resins Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl
J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

BTLSR Toledo Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl
J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Brett M.
Mares, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Certain-Teed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brett M.
Mares, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Gregory T. Goldberg, Esq. -- ggoldberg@stamostrucco.com -- at
STAMOS AND TRUCCO LLP.

Cooper Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Amy K. Shasserre, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Joshua N.
Worthington, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Eastman Chemical Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP.

Exxon Mobil Chemical Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David F. Fanning, JOHNSON AND BELL &H. Patrick
Morris, JOHNSON AND BELL.

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita
Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

General Gasket Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Clayton E. Dickey, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER
BROOM.

Hercules, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita
Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant and
Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM
&Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl
J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

KCG, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by David J.
Page, VOGLER LAW FIRM, P.C..

Mendenhall Rebuilders, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kurtis B. Reeg, REEG LAWYERS, LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, JOLEY AND NUSSBAUMER,
P.C..

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Joshua N. Worthington, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD,
P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Ross S. Titzer, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC & Thomas
L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Reichhold, Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Cross Defendant,
represented by Tracy J. Cowan, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP, John L.
Wright, HAWKINS AND PARNELL, LLP & Reno R. Cova, III, HAWKINS AND
PARNELL, LLP.

Rogers Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Timothy A. Graham, Sr., HEYL AND
ROYSTER &Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Marcie J. Vantine, KERNELL LAW KIRM, PC,Thomas J.
Kernell, KERNELL LAW FIRM, PC & Megan J. Bricker, KERNELL LAW
KIRM, PC.

The Boeing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by William R. Irwin, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J.
Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian
M. Wacker, HERZOG CREBS LLP, James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS
LLP, Mary A. Hatch, HERZOG CREBS LLP, Gary L. Smith, HERZOG CREBS
LLP & Tracy Beckman Phipps, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Yarway Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Brady Sherrod Edwards.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by James R. Williams, SEGAL AND
MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 16 Cos. Gets Summary Judgment in "Spells" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois, granted the motions for
summary judgment filed by 16 defendants in the asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuit styled RICHARD SPELLS, JR., Plaintiff
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION,
BW/IP INTERNATIONAL, CARRIER CORPORATION, CBS CORPORATION, CRANE
CO., FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, FMC CORPORATION, FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY
CORPORATION, GARDNER DENVER, INC., GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., IMO
INDUSTRIES, INC., INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, JOHN CRANE, INC.,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, NASH ENGINEERING CO.,
NORTHROP-GRUMMAN CORPORATION, TUTHILL CORPORATION, UNION CARBIDE
CORPORATION, WARREN PUMPS, LLC, AFLA LAVAL, INC., ARMSTRONG
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., ASCO VALVES, INC.,
AURORA PUMP COMPANY, CLEAVER-BROOKS INC., ENPRO INDUSTRIES, INC.
FOSTER ENGINEERING, INC. GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, HOPEMAN BROTHERS,
INC., MCCORMICK INSULATION SUPPLY, INC., RSCC WIRE & CABLE LLC,
SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., TRANE US, INC., VELAN VALVE CORP., and WEIR
VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-129-DGW-
SCW (S.D. Ill.).

As a result of the approval of the motions for summary judgment,
Northrop-Grumman Corporation, BW/IP International, Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation, Gardner Denver, Inc., Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, Carrier Corporation, Imo Industries, Inc., John
Crane, Inc., General Dynamics Corporation, Tuthill Corporation,
Union Carbide Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Company, General
Electric Company, Crane Co., Honeywell International, Inc., and
FMC Corporation are dismissed as defendants in the case.

A full-text copy of the magistrate judge's decision dated Aug. 19,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/QdiLD3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Burkhart" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Burkhart worked for H.J. Heinz Company, developed
mesothelioma, and subsequently died.  He had given deposition
testimony in a products-liability action he had filed against
various asbestos manufacturers, but he did not sue H.J. Heinz as
part of that lawsuit.  After he died, his wife, Mary Lou Burkhart,
filed a claim against H.J. Heinz seeking workers' compensation
death benefits.  She relied on her husband's deposition in the
products-liability case to show that H.J. Heinz had injuriously
exposed him to asbestos.  The Industrial Commission denied her
claim, and on appeal, the trial court struck her husband's former
testimony from the record and entered summary judgment for H.J.
Heinz.  The court of appeals reversed the entry of summary
judgment and held that Burkhart's deposition testimony is
admissible to prove that H.J. Heinz injuriously exposed him to
asbestos, concluding that the manufacturers defending the products
liability action were predecessors-in-interest because they shared
a similar motive with H.J. Heinz to develop Burkhart's testimony.

In an appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio was asked to clarify
whether former testimony given by the claimant in a products
liability lawsuit against asbestos manufacturers is admissible in
a workers' compensation lawsuit against the claimant's employer
alleging workplace exposure to asbestos.

The Ohio Supreme Court, in an opinion dated Sept. 3, 2014, ruled
that Burkhart's deposition testimony is not admissible pursuant to
Rule 804(B)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which states that
former testimony of a declarant who is not currently available to
testify is not excluded as hearsay when the following separate,
conjunctive requirements are met: (1) the party against whom the
testimony is offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a
predecessor-in-interest, had an opportunity to examine the
declarant in the prior proceeding, and (2) that party had a motive
that is similar to the motive that the party would have in the
present proceeding to develop the former testimony by direct,
cross, or redirect examination.  The Ohio Supreme Court concluded
that in this case, the parties who had an opportunity to examine
Burkhart at the prior deposition were not predecessors-in-interest
to H.J. Heinz and none of the asbestos manufacturers present at
his deposition preceded H.J. Heinz in ownership of its business,
its facilities, or the pipe insulation that allegedly caused his
exposure to asbestos.  Nor did any asbestos manufacturer in the
products-liability litigation have the same or similar motive as
H.J. Heinz to develop Burkhart's deposition testimony; rather,
each asbestos manufacturer sought to disprove that he had been
exposed to asbestos that it had produced, and none had an
incentive to dispute that he had not been exposed to asbestos at
H.J. Heinz, the Ohio Supreme Court said.  Accordingly, the Ohio
Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

The appeals case is Burkhart, Appellee, v. H.J. Heinz Company,
Appellant, et al., NO. 2013-0580 (Ohio).  A full-text copy of the
Ohio Supreme Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Es6td8
from Leagle.com.

Appellee is represented by:

         Thomas W. Bevan, Esq.
         David S. Bates, Esq.
         Joshua P. Grunda, Esq.
         BEVAN & ASSOCIATES, L.P.A., Inc.
         6555 Dean Memorial Parkway
         Boston Heights, Ohio  44236
         E-Mail:  info@bevanlaw.com

Appellant is represented by Keith A. Savidge, Esq. --
kasavidge@sseg-law.com -- Andrew D. Bemer, Esq. -- adbemer@sseg-
law.com -- and Eric D. Baker, Esq. -- EDBaker@sseg-law.com -- at
SEELEY, SAVIDGE, EBERT & GOURASH CO., L.P.A.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, L.L.P., Richard D. Schuster,
Daniel E. Shuey, and Damien C. Kitte, urging reversal for amicus
curiae, Ohio Manufacturers' Association.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers' Claims in "Lockett" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
issued an order on Sept. 4, 2014, dismissing without prejudice all
claims of Hartford Fire Insurance Company, West American Insurance
Company, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Travelers Indemnity
Co., and Zurich American Insurance Company, Successor in Interest
to Zurich Insurance Company, US Branch, as intervenors, and
Plaintiffs Charles P. Lockett and Dori Lockett, in an asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit.

The case is CHARLES P. LOCKETTT and DORI LOCKETT, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-
00379-CRB (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/eF8nk3from Leagle.com.

Charles P. Lockett and Dor Lockett, Plaintiffs, represented
by Ethan A Horn, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, Damon A.
Schwartz, Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP, Matthew Peter Juhren,
Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, Ron G. Archer, Napoli, Bern, Ripka,
Shkolnik and Associates LLP & Russell Alden Brown, Napoli Bern
Ripka Shkolnik, LLP.

Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Glen R. Powell, Gordon & Rees LLP.

Allied Insulation Supply Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Kathryn Lucille Hoff, Esq. --
lucy.hoff@wilsonelser.com -- Molly Anne Landon Friend, Esq. --
molly.friend@wilsonelser.com -- and William Murray Hake, Esq. --
bill.hake@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and
Dicker LLP.

Allied Packing and Supply, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney &
Cordery, LLP.

Armstrong International, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by James Francis Regan, Low Ball and Lynch &Sonja E.
Blomquist, Low, Ball & Lynch.

Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eimi
Watanabe, WIlson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP.

BASF Catalyst LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Matthew Thomas
Peters, Reed Smith LLP.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented
by Kimberly Chew, Burnham Brown.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Sara Kristin Egide.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Joni Lynn Loomis, Berkes Crane Robinson Seal, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Justin Finnell Cronin, Poind
North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP, Kimberly Lynn
Rivera, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP & Mary
Katherine Back, Pond North LLP.

Charles P. Lockett, Intervenor Dft, represented by Theodore Thomas
Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery, LLP, Jill James Hoffman,
Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP & Stephen Earl Carlson, Imai,
Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP.

Chevron USA Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Brian Michael
Davies, Sedgwick LLP.

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz,
Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle,
Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David
Milbrodt, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP.

Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Rebecca
Bain, Foley and Mansfield PLLP.

Crane Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Michele
Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP.

Dori Lockett, Intervenor Dft, represented by Theodore Thomas
Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery, LLP, Jill James Hoffman,
Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP & Stephen Earl Carlson, Imai,
Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley P. Kaplan, Carlson Calladine &
Peterson,William H. Armstrong, Armstrong & Associates, LLP
& Jennifer Denise Fitzpatrick, Armstrong & Associates, LLP.

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Cross-defendant, represented
by William H. Armstrong, Armstrong & Associates, LLP.

FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Justin Finnell Cronin,
Poind North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Russell
William Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP.

Fryer-Knowles, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bryan Stofferahn, Charles Stewart Bishop, Connor, Bishop &
Stofferahn LLP, Rachel Hannah Leonard, Connor, Bishop & Stofferahn
LLP & Steven Frederick Egler, Bryan Cave LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles Todd Sheldon, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins &
McCall LLP, Derek S. Johnson, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall
LLP & Katherine Paige Gardiner, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins &
McCall LLP.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel Dennis O'Shea,
Perkins Coie LLP.

Grinnell LLC, Cross-defendant, represented by Amy Jo Talarico,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Kristina Francia Almquist, Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Amber R. Craig, DeHay & Elliston LLP &Jennifer
Judin, DeHay and Elliston LLP.

Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Marisa Renee Chaves, Vasquez Estrada Conway
& Michael Anthony Vasquez, Vasquez Estrada & Conway LLP.

Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by William J. Goines, Greenberg Traurig, LLP &Alice Y
Chu, Greenberg Traurig.

Homosote Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by David Michael Glaspy, Glaspy and Glaspy.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel
Dennis O'Shea, Perkins Coie LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP, Justin M. Tafe, Leader
and Berkon LLP & Karleen Frances Murphy, Leader & Berkon LLP.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and
Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz,
Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz LLP &Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle,
Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Arpi Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and
Reinholtz LLP, Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz,
Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholz LLP & Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle,
Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Hillary H. Huth, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins &
McCall, LLP.

Lorillard Tobacco Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by William J. Goines, Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Alice Y
Chu, Greenberg Traurig.

NMBFIL, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by Lance Douglas
Wilson, Tucker Ellis LLP & Ferlin Peregrino Ruiz, Tucker Ellis
LLP.

Oakfabco, Inc., formerly known as Kewanee Boiler Corp., Defendant
and Cross Defendant, represented by Richard D. Dumont, Selman
Breitman LLP & William Joseph Gunter, Selman Breitman LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Successor Sacomo-Sierra Corp.,
Defendant, represented by Joseph Blaise Adams, Bassi Martini Edlin
& Blum, LLP.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Deborah M.D. Gustafson, Foley Mansfield, PLLP.

Thomas Dee Engineering Co. Inc., Defendant, represented
by Elisabeth Anne Hansen-Baum, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins &
McCall LLP & Michael Todd McCall, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins,
McCall LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Arpi
Galfayan, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes and Reinholtz
LLP & Carla Lynn Crochet, Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes
& Reinholz LLP.

Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Jeremy David Milbrodt, Prindle, Amaro,
Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes & Reinholtz LLP.

Union Oil Company of California, Cross-defendant, represented
by Brian Michael Davies, Sedgwick LLP.

Velan Valve Corp., Cross-defendant, represented by Alecia
Elizabeth Cotton, McKenna Long Aldridge &Arlene Carol-Mendoza
Barton, McKenna Long Aldridge.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Alecia Elizabeth Cotton, McKenna Long Aldridge & Arlene Carol-
Mendoza Barton, McKenna Long Aldridge.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by James P. Cunningham, Tucker Ellis LLP.

West American Insurance Company, Intervenor Pla, represented
by Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery,
LLP, Jill James Hoffman, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP
& Stephen Earl Carlson, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP.

William Powell Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Arturo Esteban Sandoval, Foley & Mansfield PLLP,Douglas Garth
Wah, Foley Mansfield, PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley & Mansfield
PLLP.

Zurn Industries, LLC, Successor Erie City Ironworks, Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Rebecca Bain, Foley and
Mansfield PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Court Grants Summary Judgment in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alan McMann and Donna McMann filed a case alleging that
Alan McMann contracted pleural mesothelioma as a result of being
exposed to asbestos while in the United States Navy from 1961 to
1965 and while he worked as a union carpenter at a variety of work
sites from 1966 to 1978.  Defendant PacifiCorp moves to have the
claims against it summarily dismissed.  In an order dated Sept. 2,
2014, Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted
PacifiCorp's motion because there are no genuine issues of fact as
to whether Mr. McMann was exposed to asbestos while on
PacifiCorp's property.

The case is ALAN McMANN and DONNA McMANN, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-5429 BHS (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Settle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YjdcB0
from Leagle.com.

Alan McMann and Donna McMann, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett B
Naman, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN
COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC &
Christopher B Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor by merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK
LLP, Brian D Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds,
SEDGWICK LLP.

AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel Ruttenberg,
FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J. Scott Wood, FOLEY & MANSFIELD PLLP.
CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks,
SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk Bernhardt, SEDGWICK LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
David D Mordekhov, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C
Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne,
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS
HONEYWELL.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by John
Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.
Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J Craig,
GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B Tuvim, GORDON & REES.

Pacific Construction Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason
H Daywitt, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Pfizer Inc, Defendant, represented by Marissa Alkhazov, BETTS
PATTERSON & MINES.

Saberhagen Holdings Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost
Thorson, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN.

SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Thomas Dee Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by D K Yoshida,
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J.
Kero, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio High Court Flips Ruling in "Renfrow" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Railway Company appeals from a judgment of the
Eighth District Court of Appeals affirming the denial of its
motion to administratively dismiss the complaint of Cleo J.
Renfrow, who asserts claims alleging that her husband's asbestos
exposure at Norfolk Southern caused him to develop lung cancer.
The court of appeals determined that Renfrow had provided
sufficient evidence to prevent an administrative dismissal of the
action.

The Supreme Court of Ohio, in an opinion dated Sept. 3, 2014,
reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that, in
this case, however, the physician retained by Renfrow who opined
about the cause of her husband's lung cancer is not a "competent
medical authority" as defined in R.C. 2307.91(Z), and therefore
Renfrow failed to make a prima facie showing as required by Ohio
law to prevent the administrative dismissal of the action.

The appeals case is Renfrow, Appellee, v. Norfolk Southern Railway
Company, Appellant, NO. 2013-0761 (Ohio).  A full-text copy of the
Ohio Supreme Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/H6zhQk
from Leagle.com.

Doran & Murphy, P.L.L.C., and Michael L. Torcello, Christopher M.
Murphy, and Colleen M. Blinkoff; and Mary Brigid Sweeney Co.,
L.L.C., and Mary Brigid Sweeney, for appellee.

Burns White, L.L.C., and David A. Damico, and Ira L. Podheiser,
for appellant.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Richard D. Schuster,
Daniel E. Shuey, and Damien C. Kitte, urging reversal for amici
curiae, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Council of Retail
Merchants, and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Denies Bid to Remand "Ronquille" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Blane P. Ronquille filed a suit in the Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, against 14
defendants seeking an award of damages for his alleged exposure to
asbestos between the years of 1953-1982.  On January 21, 2014,
Defendant Shell Oil Company removed the action, arguing that
federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. Section 1349(b) and 28
U.S.C. Section 1331, and that removal is authorized by 28 U.S.C.
Section 1441(a).  The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand.

In an order dated Sept. 4, 2014, Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that it appears
that at least part of the work that the Plaintiff alleges caused
his exposure to asbestos arose out of or in connection with
Shell's OCS operations.

The case is BLANE P. RONQUILLE, v. AMINOIL INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-164 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Engelhardt's Order and Reasons is available at http://is.gd/dchtrj
from Leagle.com.

Blane P. Ronquille, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry &
Swarr, LLC, Charles S. Siegel, Waters & Kraus, LLP, David Ryan
Cannella, Cannella Law Firm, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry, Swarr &
Cannella, LLC, Philip C Hoffman, Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC &
Susannah B. Chester-Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP.

Anco Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jamie Hebert
Baglio, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey, Douglas R. Elliott,
Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey & Margaret M. Joffe, Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey.

Cameron International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Douglas
R. Elliott, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey, Jennifer E.
Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John Bitner, Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Margaret M. Joffe, Pugh, Accardo, Haas,
Radecker &Carey & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan
& Stiles, LLP.

ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant, represented by Tyson B.
Shofstahl, Adams & Reese, LLP, Katie F. Wollfarth, Adams & Reese,
LLP & Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr., Adams & Reese, LLP.

Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith
& Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Freeport McMoRan Energy LLC, Defendant, represented by Sherman
Gene Fendler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Scott C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow &
Lewis.

H.B. Buster Hughes, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jerald L.
Album, Reich, Album & Plunkett, LLC.

Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph Benjamin
Morton, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Troy
Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Mark
Andrew Marionneaux, Kean Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller
LLP, Gary A. Bezet, Kean Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller,
Gregory M. Anding, Kean Miller & Vance Arnold Gibbs, Kean Miller.

Reilly Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Diane Sweezer Davis,
Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham,
Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Gary A. Bezet, Kean
Miller, Alexandra E. Rossi, Kean Miller, Allison N. Benoit, Kean
Miller, Anthony M. Williams, Kean Miller LLP, Barrye Panepinto
Miyagi, Kean Miller, Gayla M. Moncla, Kean Miller, Gregory M.
Anding, Kean Miller, Janice M. Culotta, Kean Miller LLP, Jay
Morton Jalenak, Jr., Kean Miller, Robert E. Dille, Kean Miller,
Sarah W. Anderson, Kean Miller, Sean T. McLaughlin, Kean Miller
LLP & Sean J Whittington, Kean Miller.

Mosaic Global Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sherman
Gene Fendler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis,
Scott C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow &
Lewis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling in "Tucker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
An action was commenced by Michael Tucker, Betty Tucker, and their
minor children, alleging that Tucker contracted mesothelioma as a
result of being exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by or otherwise connected to the various defendants,
including CompuDyne Corporation.  Unfortunately, Tucker died of
mesothelioma on January 5, 2011.  Afterward, Betty Tucker, as the
executrix of the estate of Michael Tucker, filed an amended
complaint that included a wrongful death cause of action.
Defendant-appellant CompuDyne appeals the decision of the Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas that denied in part a motion for a
protective order.  The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District,
Cuyahoga County, in an opinion dated Sept. 4, 2014, affirmed the
decision as modified.

The appeals case is BETTY TUCKER, INDIVIDUALLY, ETC., ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. COMPUDYNE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, NO. 100554 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Am4w04from
Leagle.com.

Kevin C. Alexandersen, Eric H. Mann, Colleen A. Mountcastle,
Gallagher Sharp, Sixth Floor, Bulkley Building, 1501 Euclid
Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44115, Attorneys for Appellants.

Brian M. White, The Mismas Law Firm, L.L.C., 38052 Euclid Avenue,
Suite 104, Willoughby, OH 44094, Attorneys for Appellees, for
Betty Tucker, Individually, etc., et al.

Kristen M. Delsole, K & L Gates, L.L.P., K & L Center, 210 6th
Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Also listed: For Crane Co.

Laura K. Hong, Tucker Ellis L.L.P., 950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100,
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213, Attorneys for Appellees, Weil McClain
Division of The Marley Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Cir. Remands Class Suit v. BASF, Law Firm
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit alleges that BASF Catalysts LLC
and Cahill Gordon & Reindel conspired to prevent thousands of
asbestos-injury victims from obtaining fair tort recoveries for
their injuries.  Decades ago, BASF's predecessor, Engelhard Corp.,
discovered that its talc products contained disease-causing
asbestos.  The Plaintiffs allege that, rather than confront the
consequences of this discovery, Engelhard, with the help of its
attorneys from Cahill, elected to pursue a strategy of denial and
deceit.  According to the complaint, Engelhard and Cahill
collected the tests and reports that documented the presence of
asbestos in Engelhard talc and they destroyed or hid them; when
new plaintiffs focused on Engelhard's talc as a possible cause of
their disease, Engelhard represented that its talc did not contain
asbestos and that no tests had ever said otherwise.

The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint in its
entirety.  Analyzing the claims individually, the District Court
determined that each was inadequately pled or barred by law.
Analyzing the various declarations and injunctions requested by
plaintiffs -- ranging from an injunction against the future
invocation of res judicata based on past state court judgments to
a declaration that BASF and Cahill committed fraud -- the District
Court dismissed them as beyond its power to grant.  The Court did,
however, reject defendants' argument that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs have
appealed the dismissal of three claims: fraud, fraudulent
concealment, and violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The Plaintiffs also defend their
requested relief.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an opinion
dated Sept. 3, 2014, concluded that the District Court erred when
it dismissed the fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, finding
that the Amended Class Action Complaint properly alleges the
elements of fraud and fraudulent concealment -- namely that BASF
and Cahill lied about and destroyed the asbestos evidence to
plaintiffs' detriment.  Neither the New Jersey litigation
privilege nor pleading requirements stand in the way of these
claims, the Third Circuit said.

The Third Circuit further ruled that the District Court did not
err in dismissing the New Jersey RICO claim as the Plaintiffs,
obliged to plead an injury to their business or property, have not
done so.  They have alleged an injury to the prosecution of their
earlier lawsuits which, under New Jersey law, does not constitute
an injury to their property, the Third Circuit said.

Lastly, the Third Circuit ruled that the District Court correctly
discerned that it could not grant the Plaintiffs all of their
requested relief.  To the extent that the Plaintiffs attempt to
have the District Court decide, at this point, the statute of
limitations, laches, and preclusion issues that will likely arise
in future cases, the Plaintiffs fail to present at Court with a
whole or ripe controversy, the Third Circuit said.  The Plaintiffs
may, however, seek injunctive and declaratory relief aimed at
resolving the claims alleged, the Third Circuit contended.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part,
and remanded for further proceedings.

The appellate case is KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, individually, as
personal representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams,
deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others
similarly situated; NANCY PEASE, individually, as personal
representative of the Estate of William Clark, deceased on behalf
of said estate, and as representative of others similarly
situated; MARILYN HOLLEY, as personal representative of the Estate
of Kathryn Darnell, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as
representative of others similarly situated; and; DONNA WARE,
individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Jennifer
Graham, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative
of others similarly situated; DONNETTE WENGERD, individually, as
personal representative of the Estate of Jennifer Graham, deceased
on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others
similarly situated; ROSANNE CHERNICK, Appellants, v. BASF
CATALYSTS LLC; CAHILL GORDON AND REINDEL LLP; CAHILL GORDON AND
REINDEL, A Partnership including a Professional Corporation;
THOMAS D. HALKET; ARTHUR A. DORNBUSCH, II; GLENN HEMSTOCK; HOWARD
G. SLOANE, a/k/a Peter Sloane; IRA J. DEMBROW; SCOTT A. MARTIN;
JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES 1 TO 100, are fictitious coporations,
partnerships, or other business entities or organizations that
BASF Catalysts LLC is responsible or liable for and whose
identities are not presently known, which entities may have mined,
milled, manufactured, sold, supplied; JOHN DOE BUSINESS ENTITIES
101 TO 200, are the fictitious firms, corporations, partnerships,
limited liability companies/associations or other business
entities or organizations whose indentities are not presently
known, and who may have perpetrated, or are responsible for, are
the alter egos; JOHN DOE LAWYERS 1 TO 500, are the fictitious
names of lawyers and law firms, legal professional corporations,
legal professional partnerships, or other professional business
business entities or organizations, or their agents, employees, or
servants, acting within the course and; JOHN DOE 1 TO 500, are the
fictitious names of individuals whose identities are not presently
known, who may have perpetrated, aided and abetted, conspired
with, acted in concert with and/or are secondarily responsible or
liable under law for the conduct or activities of, NO. 13-1089
(3d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/0NLqRFfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Coren, Esq, Harry M. Roth, Esq., Cohen, Placitella & Roth,
P.C., 2001 Market Street, Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Christopher M. Placitella, Esq., Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.,
127 Maple Avenue, Red Bank, N.J. 07701.

Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. [Argued], Fox Rothschild LLP, Princeton
Pike Corp. Center, 997 Lennox Drive, Princeton Pike Corporate
Center, Building 3, Lawrenceville, N.J. 08648, Attorneys for
Appellants.

Stephen M. Orlofsky, David C. Kistler, Blank Rome LLP, 301
Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor, Princeton, N.J. 08540.

Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. [Argued], Daniel A. Bress, Esq., Peter A.
Farrell, Esq., Michael F. Williams, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1200, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Attorneys for Appellee BASF Catalysts LLC.

Robert E. Ryan, Esq., Marc D. Haefner, Esq, Craig S. Demareski,
Esq., Connell Foley LLP, 85 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, N.J.
07068.

John K. Villa, Esq., David S. Blatt, Esq., Kannon K. Shanmugam,
Esq, [Argued], Matthew B. Nicholson, Esq., Richard A. Olderman,
Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005, Attorneys for Appellees Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Howard G. Sloane, Ira J. Dembrow, and Scott A.,
Martin,

Eric Tunis, Esq. [Argued], Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, 99 Wood
Avenue South, Iselin, NJ 08830.

Olivier Salvagno, Esq., Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, Metro
Corporate Campus One, Suite 4, P.O. Box 5600, Woodbridge, N.J.
07095, Attorneys for Appellee Thomas D. Halket.

Walter F. Timpone, Esq., Walter R. Krzastek, Jr., Esq., Michael B.
Devins, Esq., McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, 1300
Mt. Kemble Avenue, P.O. Box 2075, Morristown, N.J. 07962, Attorney
for Appellee Glen Hemstock.

Kevin H. Marino, Esq., John A. Boyle, Esq., Marino, Tortorella &
Boyle, P.C., 437 Southern Boulevard, Chatham, N.J. 07928,
Attorneys for Appellee Arthur A. Dornbusch, II.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Owed No Duty to Warn Ex-Worker's Wife
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marilyn Gillen filed a lawsuit asserting she developed
mesothelioma as a result of her exposure to asbestos.  Mrs. Gillen
worked as a secretary at the Boeing Vertol facility in Ridley
Park, Pennsylvania from 1966 to 2005.  The Plaintiff alleges that
she was exposed to asbestos while working at Boeing when the
Defendant conducted various asbestos abatement projects within her
proximity.  Mrs. Gillen's husband, Hugh Gillen, also worked at the
Boeing Vertol facility.  Mr. Gillen worked as a machinist from
1966 to 1970 and 1973 to 2005.  The Plaintiff also alleges that
she was exposed to asbestos when she laundered her husband's
clothes in her home.  The Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Gillen's
clothes contained dust from asbestos products and materials that
he worked with at Boeing.  It is this claim relating to take-home
exposure due to Mrs. Gillen's laundering of Mr. Gillen's work
clothing in her home, and not her claim relating to her exposure
while working as a secretary at Boeing, that is currently at
issue.

Defendant Boeing moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's "Household
Exposure" claim.  The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot
maintain a viable take-home exposure cause of action against
Boeing under Pennsylvania law.

Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated Aug. 26,
2014, granted Boeing's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's take-home
exposure claim, concluding that Boeing owed no duty to Mrs. Gillen
regarding her claim for "take-home exposure" to asbestos.

The case is MARILYN GILLEN, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, ET
AL., Defendants, NO. MDL 875, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-03118-ER
(E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/lNdThyfrom Leagle.com.

MARILYN GILLEN, Plaintiff and Cross Defendants, represented
by ANDREW J. DUPONT, LOCKS LAW FIRM & RYAN W. ANDERSON, LOCKS LAW
FIRM.

3M COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by BASIL A. DISIPIO, LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO.

BASF CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by CHARLES SCOTT TOOMEY, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK
& KELLY LLP, CHRISTINE M. DELANEY, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK &
KELLY LLP & DANIEL J. KAIN, LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY
LLP.

BASF STRUCTURAL MATERIALS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by CHARLES SCOTT TOOMEY, LITTLETON
JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP, CHRISTINE M. DELANEY, LITTLETON
JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP & DANIEL J. KAIN, LITTLETON JOYCE
UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP.

BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by NOEL L. SMITH, JR., HELPLER BROOM &NORMAN
L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by MICHAEL J. BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

DEXTER HYSOL AEROSPACE, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI
HANNA LLP.

FERRO CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by G. DANIEL BRUCH, JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC & JOHN C. MCMEEKIN,
RAWLE & HENDERSON.

FIBER RESIN CORPORATION, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by GEORGE S. BOBNAK, CHRISTIE PABARUE and YOUNG.

FIRST RESIN CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by GEORGE S.
BOBNAK, CHRISTIE PABARUE and YOUNG.

FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by LEROY J. JANICZEK, REILLY, JANICZEK &
MCDEVITT, PC.

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by LEROY J. JANICZEK, REILLY, JANICZEK
& MCDEVITT, PC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC.


GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by WALTER S. JENKINS, MARON MARVEL BRADLEY &
ANDERSON LLC.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by KEVIN J. O'BRIEN, MARKS, O'NEILL,
O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY P.C..

GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
& MICHAEL L. TURNER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

HENKEL CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by PETER J. NEESON, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP.

HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by DANIEL J. RYAN, JR., MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
& JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by DANIEL J. RYAN, JR., MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN & JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
and Cross Claimant, represented by WALTER S. JENKINS, MARON MARVEL
BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC.

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by AARON V. SKRYPSKI, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
& JAMES D. PAGLIARO, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.

PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI
HANNA LLP & ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI &
HANNA, LLP.

THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by JOSEPH CAGNOLI, JR., SEGAL, MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY
& NICOLA SERIANNI, SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY.

THE PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER N. SANTORO, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN & JOSHUA D. SCHEETS, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI
HANNA LLP & ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI &
HANNA, LLP.

VIACOM, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN
P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC.

VIACOM, INC., SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CBS CORPORATION, Cross
Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented byJOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA
LAW FIRM PC.


                              *********

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  * * *