CAR_Public/140919.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, September 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 187

                             Headlines


ACTIVE POWER: Can't Pursue Interlocutory Appeal in "Lee" Suit
ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder
AFOD LTD: Recalls San Mig Coffee Pro-Slim Coffeemix Due to Milk
ALL FLORIDA ERECTORS: "Gardener" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
AMYRIS INC: Court Dismisses Class Action

ANNIE'S INC: Being Sold for Too Little, California Suit Says
AT&T INC: Settles Seating Class Action for $1.05 Million
AVX CORPORATION: Sued Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Capacitors
BANK OF AMERICA: Obtains Final Approval of "Rose" Suit Settlement
BANKRATE INC: Court Dismisses TCPA Litigation With Prejudice

BANKRATE INC: Insurers to Fund Substantial Portion of Settlement
BASHAS' INC: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $6.5 Million
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Local Beekeeper Joins $450MM Class Action
BBX CAPITAL: Shareholders File Amended Complaint Over BFC Merger
BBX CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Sales Certificates Action

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement Hearing to be Held This Month
BLUE DIAMOND: Falsely Marketed Almond Products, "Vass" Suit Says
BRE SELECT: To Pay 20% of Fees in Apple REIT Class Action
BRE SELECT: Defending Against Apple REIT Litigation
BOULDER BRANDS: "Aguilar" Plaintiffs Can Amend Labeling Suit

CASTELLINO CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Delgado Case"
CENTENE COMPANY: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in Clark Case
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Hearing Held on Motion to Strike
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitrator Approved Confidential Settlement
CITIC LTD: SFC Files Class Action Over Investor Losses

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Violates FDCPA, New York Suit Claims
DARIN GORDON: Court Certifies Class in "Wilson" Case
DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Diaz" Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces "Hughes" Action for Fixing Price of Silver

DGC RESTAURANT: Court Awards Atty. Fees and Costs in "Huang" Case
DIODES INCORPORATED: No Hearing Date Set on Motion to Dismiss
DS SERVICES: Settled Privacy Lawsuit for $2,000,000
DS SERVICES: To Settle Wage and Hour Lawsuits for $2,000,000
EAGLE MATERIALS: Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Case in Discovery

EPICOR SOFTWARE: Oct. 24 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement
F.N.B. CORPORATION: "Parshall" Plaintiff Filed Amended Class Suit
FBR & CO: Court of Appeals Affirmed District Court Judgment
FLEETMATICS GROUP: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
FOUR AMBASSADORS: "Posada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

FORD MOTOR: Dist. Court Dismisses "Durkee" Class Action
GABRIEL ROEDER: Faces Class Action Over Actuarial Services
GAMESTOP INC: Wins Prelim. OK of $750K Deal to Settle Labor Suit
GYRODATA INC: Faces "Huval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HARVARD AGENCY: Faces "Deodath" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HIGHER ONE: November 24 Fairness Hearing in Consumer Class Action
HIGHER ONE: Perez Filed Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff
HSBC HOLDINGS: Settles FHFA MBS Suit for $550 Million
INDYMAC BANCORP: Settles Underwriters' Class Action for $340MM
IMPERVA INC: Response to Class Action Not Yet Due

INTERNATIONAL SERVICES: Blume Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Briefing Must Be Completed by July 2015
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Defrauds Single Professionals, Class Suit Claims
J & T MANAGEMENT: Removed "Valentin" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
JD HOGGS: Recalls Meat and Sausage Smokies Due to Undeclared Milk

JIMMY JOHN'S: Settles Class Action Over Missing Alfalfa Sprouts
JOHN WOOD: Recalls 50-Gallon Residential Water Heaters
KAISER PERMANENTE: To Pay $4-Mil. Fine Over Mental Care Services
KFORCE INC: Expects Pending Appeal to be Dismissed Imminently
KIDDE CANADA: Recalls Smoke & Combination Smoke/CO Alarms

KING BUICK: Court Dismisses Portion of Federal Claims
LAROCCA INTERNATIONAL: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
LENOVO INC: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
LOWE'S HOME: Judge Refuses to Sign Off $3.4MM OT Suit Settlement
MARRONE BIO: Illegally Inflates Stock Price, "Chen" Suit Claims

MARRONE BIO: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
MBR MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Onion Rings Due to Glass
MERCEDES-BENZ US: Sued Over Discrimination Against Black Workers
MICROSOFT INC: Court Dismissed Suit Over X-Box Live Privacy

MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over FCRA Violations
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Awaits Settlement Approval in "Toth" Suit
OHIO EDUCATION: Settles Teachers' Class Action Over Union Dues
OMEGA FOOD: Recalls Wolski Horseradish Over Undeclared Sulphites
OUTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Mich. Appeals Ct. Upholds Ruling in C&L Case

PACIFIC COAST: Defending Against "Welch" Lawsuit
PAYPAL INC: Objection to "Zepeda" Suit Ruling Overruled
PFIZER INC: Court Dismisses "Plumlee" Case With Prejudice
PFIZER INC: Consumer Group Loses Freedom of Information Act Suit
PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATES: Moved "Berkowitz" Suit to E.D. Missouri

PINNACLE SECURITY: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
POHANKA AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Jones" Class Action
POST HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for December 2014
PREMIER INGREDIENTS: Recalls Konrads.ca Spice Due to Salmonella
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Faces Class Actions Over Dai-ichi Merger

REACH MEDIA: Faces "Dumas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
REDFIELD CORPORATION: Recalls Infrared Coagulation System
REPUBLIC BANCORP: Agreed Order Entered Dismissing "Webb" Suit
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Filed
SCI FUNERAL: "Menor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties

SEARS CANADA: Hometown Store Dealers Suit Gets Class-Action Status
STATE STREET: 2 ERISA Class Actions Pending in Boston Court
STATE STREET: 3 Shareholder Complaints Pending in Boston Court
SUPER ASIA: Recalls Mitchell's Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
SUSSER HOLDINGS: Amended Consolidated Class Action Filed

TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Entered Into Confidential Settlement
TREE.COM INC: Settlement Fund in "Boschma" Suit Fully Funded
TREE.COM INC: Settlement Reached in "Dijkstra" Suit
TRICO BANCSHARES: Entered MOU to Settle Shareholders' Lawsuit
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Claims

UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Heard Arguments in "Human Guinea Pig" Suit
US TENNIS: Wins Summary Judgment in Labor Class Suit by Umpires
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Defending Against Garden City v. PSI
VINH FAT: Recalls Frozen Pork Spring Rolls, Pork Buns & Wontons
VIVINT INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports

W.R. GRACE: Lukins & Annis to Get 10% Share of Scott's Fee Award
WAL-MART STORES: Court Certified 2 Classes of Cal. Truck Drivers
WARINEZ LLC: "Danilo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Definition in Washer Product Case Modified
WINDOW-FIX INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Securities Class Action in Connecticut
ZYNGA INC: Sept. 19 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
ZYNGA INC: Briefing on Bid to Stay and Demurrer Completed in Aug.
ZYNGA INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Suit Held in August


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Catalysts Must Face Claims It Hid Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at Trinidad & Tobago PTSC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 328 Suits Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Records $385MM PI Claims Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 29,037 Fibro Cases at June 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 432 Pending Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,180 Outstanding PI Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Increased Net Reserves by $26MM at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had $111-Mil. Reserves for Foreign Risks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Boudreaux" Suit v. McDermott Int'l Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "New Antoine" v. McDermott Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Empire State Will Not Remove Fibro in Properties
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 30 Set as Garlock Sealing Claims Bar Date

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Adelsflugel" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois' Bid to Junk "Ahnert" Suit Okayed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fulton's Bid to Junk "Fallon" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Awarded $670,000 From WR Grace Class Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hammell" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Junk "Hockler" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Set Aside Verdict Partially Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Allowed to Proceed v. Individuals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Bid to Junk "Murray" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Super. Court Dismisses "Stillwell" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Dismissed as Defendant in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to File Dispositive Motion in PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Litigator Wins $18.6MM Verdict in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: R-Building Renovation to Require Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Humboldt Health Center

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Mulch Testing Ongoing in Bundaberg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dies Due to Exposure to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salinus Nursing Home, Contractors Settle Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Cambridge Council Chambers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rottnest Island Fibro Risk Confirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Health Professionals Trained on Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in 2nd Mount Maresa Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seymour Demolition Hits Snag Over Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Litigation Still Active & Still Evolving
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Gov't Delays Mr. Fluffy Clean-up Budget

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Bans May Take Decades to Cut Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Answers Demanded After Worker Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Orange, NSW House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Gets in Tenn. Board
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Known Fibro Insulation Threat in NW

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testimony Used in Tort Claims Inadmissible
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Could Kick Stamford Cops Out of Station
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Students Released Early Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Projects in Quad Still Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Fund Wants to Pay in Installments

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Dubuque Schools Not a "Huge Concern"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capital Hill Employees Concered About Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Greenall High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Claimants Want Records Kept Private
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Alleging Cahill Gordon Hid Evidence Revived

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Review Take-Home Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parent Kept in the Dark Over Fibro Discovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Justice Over Husband's Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Denies "Take-Home Exposure" Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anderson Man Sentenced for Knowing Endangerment

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Must Face Fibro Coverup Fraud Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Library Fibro Abatement Due Sept. 17
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother with Fibro-related Cancer Wins Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin AG Fines Firm for Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Gov't Closer to Decision on Mr. Fluffy

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Wrongful Death Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Upholds Take-Home Claim Against TVA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Loses Bid for Extra Fees in WR Grace Deal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Non Conveniens A Way to Unclog Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Present in North Carolina Campus

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Refuses to Dismiss Fibro Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fruits Beats Fibro Exposure Suit in MDL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Post Office Worker Killed by Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Presents Challenge in D'Ville Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Cannot Prove Pensioner's Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Complicates NY Demolition
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk in Rozelle Very Low, Police Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Normandy Park Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delay Adds Cost for New Cultural Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ME Bank Looking to Ensure Mr. Fluffy Awareness

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Owes $18.6MM for Tire Builder's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Want Clients' Info to Remain Sealed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flooding Leads to Fibro Concerns at Court House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Fibro Compensation Scheme Short
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling Allowing Doc Access

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Property Owners Sentenced for CAA Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Linked to Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Napoli Law Firm Addresses Reputation Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Penn Plans to Remove Fibro in School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remove Fibro From Schools, UK Mom Pleads

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants Look for Lawyers Who Can Make Deals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deceased Worker's Testimony Barred in Suit


                            *********


ACTIVE POWER: Can't Pursue Interlocutory Appeal in "Lee" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In DON LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. ACTIVE POWER, INC., STEPHEN R. FIFE, DOUG
MILNER, Defendant, CASE NO. A-13-CA-797-SS, (W.D. Tex.), the Court
on July 2, 2014, denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
securities fraud class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).  Two weeks after the Court's denial of the
motion to dismiss, Defendants filed a motion to amend the order to
include 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) certification in which they seek
the Court's approval to pursue an interlocutory appeal to the
Fifth Circuit.

District Judge Sam Sparks denied the motion to amend in an order
dated August 29, 2014, saying Defendants failed to identify a
controlling question of law for purposes of a Section 1292(b)
interlocutory appeal.  The Court determined that Plaintiffs
adequately pleaded their securities fraud action, and the Court
will not delay their lawsuit with an interlocutory appeal because
Defendants think the Court got the motion to dismiss wrong or
because Defendants think controlling precedent has been indirectly
narrowed by a subsequent Supreme Court opinion. The Fifth Circuit
can address their contentions at a later, more proper time, Judge
Sparks added.

A copy of the District Court ruling is available at
http://is.gd/9PkL2Rfrom Leagle.com.

Bahadir Onalan, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Ronald Dean
Gresham -- dean@paynemitchell.com -- Payne Mitchell Law Group,
Andrew L. Payne -- andy@paynemitchell.com -- Payne Mitchell Law
Group, L.L.P. & Jonathan Horne -- jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Colin Vestrand, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Dean Gresham,
Payne Mitchell Law Group & Jonathan Horne, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A.

Active Power, Inc., Defendant, represented by James P. Sullivan --
jsullivan@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Michael J. Biles --
mbiles@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Paul R. Bessette --
pbessette@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP & Royale Price, King &
Spalding LLP.

Steven R. Fife, Defendant, represented by James P. Sullivan, King
& Spalding LLP, Michael J. Biles, King & Spalding LLP, Paul R.
Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP & Royale Price, King & Spalding
LLP.

Doug Milner, Defendant, represented by James P. Sullivan, King &
Spalding LLP, Michael J. Biles, King & Spalding LLP, Paul R.
Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP & Royale Price, King & Spalding
LLP.


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Advantage Health Matters
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Advantage Health Matters is recalling Organic Traditions brand
Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder from the marketplace due to
possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described.

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

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

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

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

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


AFOD LTD: Recalls San Mig Coffee Pro-Slim Coffeemix Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           AFOD Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan, Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

AFOD Ltd. is recalling San Mig Coffee brand Pro-Slim Coffeemix
from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should not
consume the recalled product described below.

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

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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


ALL FLORIDA ERECTORS: "Gardener" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Gardner, and other similarly-situated individuals v. All
Florida Erectors & Welding, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-23367 (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

All Florida Erectors & Welding, Inc. is a fabricator and erector
doing business in Seminole County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMYRIS INC: Court Dismisses Class Action
----------------------------------------
A U.S. court dismissed a securities class action after the
plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint further, Amyris, Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

The securities class action complaint was filed in May 2013
against the Company and its CEO, John G. Melo, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. In October
2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The complaint, as amended, sought unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired
the Company's common stock between April 29, 2011 and February 8,
2012. The complaint alleged securities law violations based on the
Company's commercial projections during that period.

In December 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. In March 2014, the court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint. The
plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint further and, on June
12, 2014, the court issued an order (based on stipulation of the
parties) dismissing the action with prejudice.

Amyris, Inc. is a renewable products company focused on providing
sustainable alternatives to a broad range of petroleum-sourced
products.


ANNIE'S INC: Being Sold for Too Little, California Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Annie's
(organic foods) too cheaply through an unfair process to General
Mills, for $820 million or $46 a share, shareholders claim in
Alameda County Court.


AT&T INC: Settles Seating Class Action for $1.05 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that former
California employees and AT&T have settled a lawsuit alleging the
cell phone company violated sections of the California Labor Code.

Class members are those who worked at AT&T as a retail sales
consultant and/or a sales support representative in California at
any time between July 7, 2010, and Jan. 13.

AT&T failed to provide suitable seating under California Labor
Code Sections 1198 and 2698.

George Gallardo, Carlos Barragan, Kyle Binns, Carlos Cruz,
Jennifer DeWitt, Hector Rodriguez and Denise Roman and AT&T agreed
on a settlement sum of $1.05 million, according to settlement
documents filed Sept. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Class counsel is seeking an award of attorneys' fees and costs in
the amount of $75,000, to be paid out of the settlement sum.

Gilardi & Co. will receive no more than $50,000 for administration
of the settlement.

The remaining amount after deduction of the cost of administering
the settlement and attorney fees and costs is the net settlement
sum, according to the settlement document.

"Pursuant to statute and subject to Court approval, 75% of the net
settlement sum, or $693,750, will be remitted to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency with the remaining 25%,
$231,250, distributed to class members who do not exclude
themselves from the settlement."

The plaintiffs are not seeking any class representative
enhancements, according to the settlement document.

"Distribution to class members is based upon the number of weeks
they were employed in an RSC or SSR position in California from
July 7, 2010 through January 13, 2014," the document states.  "Any
class member who began working in a represented position after
July 7, 2010, will have three weeks deducted from their total
eligible weeks to account for the time spent in initial training
in a classroom setting where seating was not an issue."

Payments made to class members from the net settlement sum will be
treated as payments in settlement of a disputed claim for civil
PAGA penalties and will be paid without employment tax
withholdings.

The lawsuit was first filed Aug. 19, 2011, in the Superior Court
of California-Alameda County. It was removed to federal court on
Sept. 23, 2011.

The plaintiffs claimed they were not provided with seating, which
violated California labor laws.

The plaintiffs are represented by David A. Rosenfeld --
drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net -- and Roberta D. Perkins --
rperkins@unioncounsel.net -- of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld.

AT&T is represented by Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com
-- Michael D. Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- and Sylvia J.
Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods LLP.

The case is assigned to District Judge Claudia Wilken.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 4:11-cv-04749


AVX CORPORATION: Sued Over Alleged Price-Fixing of Capacitors
-------------------------------------------------------------
eIQ Energy Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AVX Corporation, Elna Co., Ltd., Elna
America Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04123 (N.D. Cal., September
11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for tantalum
capacitors, aluminum electrolytic capacitors and film capacitors
sold in the United States.

The Defendants are foreign corporations that manufacture and sell
tantalum capacitors, aluminum capacitors and film capacitors to
purchasers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

         - and -

      Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
      Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
      Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN &BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: 215-592-4663
      E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com
              acohen@lfsblaw.com
              kverrier@lfsblaw.com

         - and -

      Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
      Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Ria Momblanco, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              dperelman@finekaplan.com
              gdever@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com
              rmomblanco@finekaplan.com

         - and -

      W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street, Post Office Box 4160 (36103)
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
      E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com

         - and -

      Dennis J. Drasco, Esq.
      Arthur M. Owens, Esq.
      LUM, DRASCO &POSITAN, LLC
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 403-9000
      Facsimile: (973) 403-9021
      E-mail: DDrasco@lumlaw.com
              AOwens@lumlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Obtains Final Approval of "Rose" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila granting final approval of a
settlement, and granted in part and denied in part, a motion for
attorney's fees and costs in the case captioned STEPHANIE ROSE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, and FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.,
Defendants.  CAROL DUKE AND JACK POSTER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; AND FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 5:11-CV-02390-EJD, NO. 5:12-CV-04009-EJD,
(N.D. Cal.).

The Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to pay more than $32
million into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund. The parties have
described this recovery as the largest "ever obtained in a
[Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991] TCPA class action."
The Court has determined that the amount of the Settlement Fund,
considered in light of the size of the class, is in line with
recoveries obtained in similar TCPA class action settlements.

With respect the attorney fees and costs, Judge Davila held that
the relevant factors do not justify an award of 25% of the common
fund, nor do they justify a high lodestar multipler such as 5.34
or 8.65.  The Court determined that a multiplier of 2.59 is
appropriate.

"A 2.59 multiplier applied to the $927,507.30 lodestar results in
a total fee award of $2,402,243.91 (inclusive of costs)," Judge
Davila wrote in his order dated August 29, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/vX7Eaq from Leagle.com.  "Finally,
the requested $2,000 award to each of the seven named Plaintiffs
is fair and reasonable, falling squarely in line with incentive
awards granted in other cases."

Carol Duke, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson --
dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Jonathan David Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Matthew Ryan Wilson --
mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., LPA & Nicole Diane
Sugnet -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Jack Poster, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Jonathan David Selbin, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Matthew Ryan Wilson, Meyer
Wilson Co., LPA & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Abraham J.
Coleman -- acolman@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, David S. Reidy
-- dreidy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Felicia Yangru Yu --
fyu@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Matthew James Brady --
mbrady@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Michael A Garabed --
mgarabed@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Raymond Yoon Ho Kim --
rkim@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP.

Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Abraham J.
Coleman, Reed Smith LLP, David S. Reidy, Reed Smith LLP, Felicia
Yangru Yu, Reed Smith LLP, Matthew James Brady, Reed Smith,
Michael A Garabed, Reed Smith LLP & Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Reed
Smith, LLP.

FIA Card Services, N.A., Defendant, represented by Abraham J.
Coleman, Reed Smith LLP, David S. Reidy, Reed Smith LLP, Felicia
Yangru Yu, Reed Smith LLP, Matthew James Brady, Reed Smith,
Michael A Garabed, Reed Smith LLP & Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Reed
Smith, LLP.


BANKRATE INC: Court Dismisses TCPA Litigation With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action
lawsuit styled Steven Nicoski v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed in
October 2013 against the Company in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and seeking statutory
damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees. The plaintiff
alleged that the Company contacted him and the members of the
class he sought to represent on their cellular telephones without
their prior express consent. The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification in December 2013, which was denied without
prejudice in March 2014.

On June 23, 2014, the plaintiff entered into a settlement
agreement with the Company on an individual basis for an
immaterial amount.   n July 15, 2014, the court dismissed the case
with prejudice.

Bankrate is a publisher, aggregator and distributor of personal
finance content on the Internet.


BANKRATE INC: Insurers to Fund Substantial Portion of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate Inc.'s insurers are expected to fund at least a
substantial portion of a class action settlement fund,
Bankrate said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

A purported class action suit was brought in October 2013 in
federal court in the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain officers and directors of the Company, entities
associated with Apax Partners, and the underwriters in the
Company's 2011 initial public offering and December 2011 stock
offering.  The suit, captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
v. Bankrate, Inc., 13-CV-7183, alleges, among other things, that
the Company's public disclosures regarding its insurance leads
business, were materially misleading, and seeks relief under the
federal securities laws, including damages.

On January 21, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint,
which asserted claims against the Company, certain officers of the
Company, and entities associated with Apax Partners, and dropped
the claims asserted against the underwriters and certain Company
directors. On April 15, 2014, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss as to claims asserted against the entities
associated with Apax Partners, and denied the motion to dismiss as
to the remaining claims.

On June 9, 2014, the Company announced that it has reached a
proposed agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle this
litigation.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate
would pay a total of $18 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to
resolve all claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Bankrate stock between June 16, 2011 and
October 15, 2012.  The proposed settlement further provides that
Bankrate denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability.

Bankrate's insurers are expected to fund at least a substantial
portion of the Settlement Fund.  During the three months ended
June 30, 2014 the Company recorded a loss for the settlement and
related legal expenses of $9.1 million, net of agreed to insurance
proceeds of $10.0 million in legal settlements within the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. The
Company expects to receive additional insurance proceeds. The
$10.0 million of insurance proceeds is included in prepaid
expenses and other current assets and the accrued legal settlement
of $19.1 million is included in other current liabilities within
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2014.

Bankrate is a publisher, aggregator and distributor of personal
finance content on the Internet.


BASHAS' INC: Settles Discrimination Class Action for $6.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class
members and Bashas' Inc. have settled a lawsuit a more than
decade-old alleging the grocery store company discriminated
against Hispanic employees.

Bashas' agreed to pay $6.5 million to resolve claims for class
damages, administrative expenses, service awards to the Gonzalo
Estrada and Aurelia Martinez and attorneys fees and costs,
according to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement filed Aug. 27 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.

Bashas' will deposit the full amount in a qualified settlement
fund, or an escrow account if the court has not yet ruled on final
approval, on Feb. 16.

There is no reversion of any funds to the employer, according to
the suit.

"The agreement allocates $400,000 as an administrative cost fund,"
the settlement document states.  "The parties negotiated this
amount because locating class members in this case presents unique
challenges, resulting from the very long duration of the case."

The class period opens in 1998 and, according to Bashas',
approximately 90 percent of the class members are no longer
employed with the defendant.

"It is likely that some class members will have moved from the
address that they used while employed at [the defendant]," the
document states.  "It is also likely that some class members have
moved or returned to Mexico or other countries in Central America.
Moreover, mailing claim checks to class members in Mexico requires
several additional administrative steps to ensure that they are
received."

A final challenge is that many class members are monolingual
Spanish speakers, requiring all communications to be in both
English and Spanish, according to the document.  After considering
these challenges and researching options for distributing checks
in Mexico, the plaintiffs earmarked this sum as the amount
necessary to ensure that as many class members as possible are
located and that they receive their claim share.

Each class member's share of the settlement will be calculated
based upon the difference between his or her actual hours worked
and hourly rates received at the defendant's stores, with the same
number of hours at the hourly rates paid at Bashas' and A.J.'s
Fine Foods for the same time period.

Five percent simple interest will be added to the wage loss to
reach an individual loss calculation.

Estrada and Martinez may apply for a service payment of up to
$10,000 to compensate them for the services that they provided to
the class over the past decade, to be paid from the gross
settlement fund, according to the settlement.

Class counsel requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.625
million and related non-taxable expenses in the amount of
$178,761.26.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2002 when the plaintiffs claimed
that Bashas' violated Title VII and Section 1981 when it used
lower pay scales to pay its Hispanic hourly workers who worked at
its Food City grocery stores from 1998 to 2007.

In May 2013, after many years of litigation, the court granted
certification of a class of over 12,000 Hispanic Food City workers
challenging the discriminatory pay policy.

The plaintiffs claimed they and class members who were employed by
Bashas' at Food City were paid less than workers at Bashas' other
grocery stores, as documented in the company's written pay scales.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jocelyn D. Larkin of the Impact
Fund; and Andrew Joseph Kahn and Elizabeth A. Lawrence of Davis,
Cowell & Bowe LLP

The defendant is represented by Elizabeth Anne Schallop Call --
bcall@steptoe.com -- Douglas David Janicik and Stephanie J. Quincy
-- squincy@steptoe.com -- of Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Raymond Myles
Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Thomas J. Kennedy --
tkennedy@shermanhoward.com -- and Theodore A. Olsen --
tolsen@shermanhoward.com -- of Sherman & Howard LLC; and Kate
Elizabeth Frenzinger -- eal@dcbsf.com -- of DLA Piper LLP.

The case is assigned to District Judge Diane J. Humetewa.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona case number: 2:02-
cv-00591


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Local Beekeeper Joins $450MM Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Svela, writing for The Wellington Advertiser, reports that a
local beekeeper is joining a $450-million class action lawsuit
launched against two chemical companies that alleges their
pesticides are decimating bee colonies.

Jim Coneybeare, owner and operator of Coneybeare Honey just north
of Fergus, told the Advertiser he is joining the class action suit
against Bayer CropScience Inc. and Syngenta Canada Inc. and their
parent companies.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants were negligent in their design,
manufacture, sale and distribution of neonicotinoid pesticides or
"neonics," specifically those containing thiomethoxam,
clothianidin and imidacloprid.

Mr. Coneybeare said he has joined a growing list of beekeepers in
the $450-million lawsuit, 20 of which he knows personally.  The
statement of claim also alleges the pesticides, which are a
neurotoxin to insects, are widely coated on corn, soybean and
canola seeds in Canada to protect the plants from pests such as
aphids.  The honey producers, lead by primary plaintiffs Sun
Parlor Honey of Cottam, Ontario and Munro Honey of Alvinston,
Ontario, say studies have shown that bees exposed to the
pesticides have smaller colonies, have trouble navigating and fail
to return to their hives.

The pesticides were also found in 70 per cent of dead bees tested
by Health Canada in 2013.

Mr. Coneybeare contends the chemicals are not only killing his
bees, but have an adverse impact on the environment.  The use of
the pesticides, he says, has forced him to move some of his hives
to areas of Grey County and further north, where crop farming is
not that prevalent.  But he has seen the impact the chemicals are
having on his queen bees.

"There are pockets in Wellington County with 100,000 acres of
corn, 100% treated," Mr. Coneybeare said.

He added that in areas with heavy crop activity his hives have
produced about one-tenth of the honey expected.

The losses come primarily in May, June and July, when bees are
active and hives are expanding, Mr. Coneybeare explained.

"Losing queens [that] time of year is a death sentence for the
hives," he said.  "We're still seeing at least 10 per cent of the
queens failing."

According to him the companies are claiming bee deaths are due to
other causes such as Varroa mites.

"OMAFRA inspections showed I had no threat in my hives,"
Mr. Coneybeare said of the bee deaths he says have cost him about
$250,000.

"It's a controlled deflection," he added, of the chemical
companies response to the deaths.

Mr. Coneybeare said the Ontario Beekeepers' Association is
offering support for the lawsuit, but has no direct involvement.

"The goal is to stop the use of the neonicotinoids to stop the
harm to the bees and the beekeepers," said Paula Lombardi, a
lawyer with London-based law firm Siskinds LLP, which is handling
the Canada-wide class action. "

The basis of the claim is that they (the companies) were
negligent."

Ms. Lombardi, an environmental lawyer, said she was initially
contacted by the Sierra Club of Canada about the issue and later
by two commercial beekeeping companies before launching the
lawsuit.

"Most have suffered substantial losses," she said of the
commercial ventures.

She is hoping a settlement will be reached before the case goes to
trial.  A settlement, according to her, could be in place within
two years.

Bayer and Syngenta officials have told several media outlets they
could not comment on the matter because their companies have not
yet been served with the lawsuit.


BBX CAPITAL: Shareholders File Amended Complaint Over BFC Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation continues to defend itself in a
shareholder lawsuit challenging the merger with BFC Financial
Corporation, BBX said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On May 30, 2013, Haim Ronan filed a purported class action against
BFC, BBX Merger Sub, BBX Capital and the members of BBX Capital's
board of directors seeking to represent BBX Capital's shareholders
in a lawsuit challenging the currently proposed merger between BFC
and BBX Capital. In this action, which is styled Haim Ronan, On
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. Alan B.
Levan, John E. Abdo, Jarett S. Levan, Steven M. Coldren, Bruno L.
Di Giulian, Charlie C. Winningham, II, David A. Lieberman, Willis
N. Holcombe, Anthony P. Segreto, BBX Capital Corporation, BFC
Financial Corporation and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and was filed in the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, Mr. Ronan asserted as a cause of action that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care,
loyalty and good faith, in part, by failing to obtain a high
enough price for the shares of BBX Capital's Class A Common Stock
to be acquired by BFC in the merger. Mr. Ronan also asserted a
cause of action against BFC and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Mr. Ronan is seeking an
injunction blocking the proposed merger.

On May 31, 2013, in an action styled John P. Lauterbach, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BBX Capital
Corporation, John E. Abdo, Norman H. Becker, Steven M. Coldren,
Bruno L. Di Giulian, John K. Grelle, Willis N. Holcombe, Alan B.
Levan, Jarett S. Levan, David A. Lieberman, Anthony P. Segreto,
Charlie C. Winningham II, Seth M. Wise, BFC Financial Corporation
and BBX Merger Sub, LLC and filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, John P.
Lauterbach filed a purported class action against all of the
defendants named in Mr. Ronan's complaint, challenging the
currently proposed merger for substantially the same reasons as
set forth in Mr. Ronan's complaint, but asserting an additional,
direct cause of action for breach of fiduciary duties against BFC,
Alan B. Levan and John E. Abdo. Mr. Lauterbach also added as
defendants Norman H. Becker, who was appointed to BBX Capital's
board of directors on May 7, 2013, as well as Seth M. Wise, who
serves as an executive officer and director of BFC and as an
executive officer of BBX Capital, and John K. Grelle, who serves
as an executive officer of BFC and BBX Capital.

On September 4, 2013, the Ronan and Lauterbach actions were
consolidated into a single action styled In Re BBX Capital
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, with the complaint filed in
the Lauterbach action being the operative complaint in the
consolidated action. On October 11, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in the consolidated action.

In the amended complaint, which includes the same causes of action
set forth in the Lauterbach complaint, the plaintiffs: (i) allege
that the merger, including the exchange ratio and other terms and
conditions of the merger agreement, is unfair to BBX Capital's
minority shareholders and is the product of unfair dealing on the
part of the defendants; (ii) allege that the defendants initiated,
timed, negotiated and structured the merger for the benefit of BFC
and to the detriment of BBX Capital's minority shareholders,
including that BFC and its and BBX Capital's management caused BBX
Capital to engage in transactions which had the effect of reducing
BBX Capital's intrinsic value; (iii) challenge the independence of
the members of BBX Capital's special committee and the process
pursuant to which BBX Capital's special committee engaged its
legal and financial advisors, and negotiated and approved the
merger agreement, including limitations on its ability to pursue
alternative transactions; (iv) assert that BBX Capital's
shareholders' rights to appraisal do not constitute an adequate
remedy; and (v) allege that the joint proxy statement/prospectus
contains material misrepresentations and does not contain adequate
disclosure regarding the merger and specifically the value of BBX
Capital and the shares of its Class A Common Stock, and fails to
provide the plaintiffs and BBX Capital's minority shareholders the
information necessary to determine whether the merger
consideration is fair.

On November 8, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint arguing that plaintiffs' remedies were limited
to an action for appraisal under Florida law.

On April 8, 2014, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
On April 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

On April 18, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The Second Amended Class Action Complaint added
allegations with respect to BBX Capital's March 21, 2014
definitive proxy statement.  Specifically, plaintiffs allege that
in the definitive proxy statement defendants set a vote date of
April 29, 2014, but failed to provide full and accurate disclosure
regarding: (i) the timing of the merger, (ii) the status of the
listing of the new shares; (iii) transactions impacting valuation
following the negotiation of the exchange ratio; (iv) the per
share value of shares held by BBX Capital's minority shareholders
and (v) the fundamental assumptions underlying the opinion of BBX
Capital's financial advisor.

BBX Capital and BFC believe the claims to be without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action.


BBX CAPITAL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Sales Certificates Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation continues to defend itself in the New
Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, BBX said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of BBX Capital Asset Management, LLC ("CAM"),
among others as defendants.  The class action complaint is brought
on behalf of a class defined as "all persons who owned real
property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate
issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a
Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State
of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."  Plaintiffs allege
that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009,
the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate
interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public
auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009.
During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic.
Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of
BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March
2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main
antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on January 6, 2014.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax have moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice as to all claims,
and are awaiting the Court's decision on the fully-briefed motion.
BBX Capital believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the actions.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement Hearing to be Held This Month
----------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in December 2007, a
purported class of shareholders in public companies acquired by
one or more private equity firms filed a lawsuit against a number
of private equity firms and investment banks, including The
Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et
al.). The suit alleges that, from mid-2003 through 2007, eleven
defendants violated the antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to
rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the
prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide
up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged
buyouts. On July 28, 2014, Blackstone entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve all of plaintiffs' claims without any
admission of wrongdoing. On August 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, which
is expected to be heard in early September 2014.

"The settlement agreement provides for a settlement payment to the
class that was substantially covered by insurance and did not have
a material effect on our financial condition or results of
operations. The settlement agreement is subject to final approval
by the court," the Company said.

The Blackstone Group L.P., together with its subsidiaries, is a
global manager of private capital and provider of financial
advisory services.


BLUE DIAMOND: Falsely Marketed Almond Products, "Vass" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casley Vass, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 1:14-cv-13610 (D.
Mass., September 11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants deceived
its customers into believing that Blue Diamond products are
natural and sweetened with the false and misleading term
Evaporated Cane Juice when, in fact, its products contain
artificial ingredients, synthetic additives and are sweetened with
sugar and not the healthier sounding juice.

Blue Diamond Growers is a well-known producer of almond products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com


BRE SELECT: To Pay 20% of Fees in Apple REIT Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company, as
successor to Apple Six, will pay 20%, and the other parties to the
litigation cost sharing agreement will pay 80%, of the fees and
expenses of specified counsel or any other counsel, consultant or
service provider jointly retained in connection with the Apple
REIT class action litigation, incurred after November 29, 2012 in
connection with the Apple REIT class action litigation.

BRE Select Hotels Corp, together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Delaware corporation that made
an election, through the filing of Form 1120-REIT for 2012, to
qualify as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal
income tax purposes. The Company was formed on November 28, 2012
to invest in income-producing real estate in the United States
through the acquisition of Apple REIT Six, Inc. ("Apple Six") on
behalf of BRE Select Hotels Holdings LP ("BRE Holdings"), a
Delaware limited partnership and an affiliate of the Company. 100%
of the common stock of the Company is owned by BRE Holdings, which
is an affiliate of Blackstone Real Estate Partners VII L.P.
("Sponsor"). The acquisition of Apple Six was completed on May 14,
2013 ("Acquisition Date"). As of June 30, 2014, the Company owned
63 hotels located in 18 states with an aggregate of 7,426 rooms.


BRE SELECT: Defending Against Apple REIT Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on
litigation involving the Apple REIT companies.

On May 14, 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of Apple
Six, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
November 29, 2012.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation. The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012. Apple Six was
previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc. et al. class action lawsuit, which was
filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Apple
Six, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund
Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.,
Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their directors
and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. ("David
Lerner Associates") and David Lerner. Apple REIT Seven, Inc.,
Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten,
Inc. are collectively referred to as "other Apple REIT companies."
The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units in Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies, or those who otherwise acquired these units that were
offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates or its
affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida, asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of Apple Six and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Apple Six, Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units of Apple Six and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., or
those who otherwise acquired these units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws. On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, Apple Six and the other Apple REIT companies
served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re
Apple REITs Litigation. Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint with a memorandum of law in support of their motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On April 3, 2013, the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation was granted in full with
prejudice. On April 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the Apple REIT class action litigation, appealing the decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
July 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a brief in support of their
appeal. On October 25, 2013, defendants filed a brief opposing
plaintiffs' appeal. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a reply
brief in further support of their appeal. Oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal was held on March 31, 2014.

On April 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") entered a summary order in
the In re Apple REITs Litigation . In the summary order, the
Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "District
Court") of the federal securities claims and state securities law
claims and affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim.
However, the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims and
remanded for further proceedings.

After remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants filed a brief in support
of their motion to dismiss. On July 9, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
opposition brief. Defendants' reply brief is scheduled to be filed
on August 8, 2014.

The Company believes that any claims against it are without merit,
and it intends to continue to defend against them vigorously. At
this time, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of
this proceeding or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible
loss or range of loss due to this proceeding.

BRE Select Hotels Corp, together with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries (the "Company"), is a Delaware corporation that made
an election, through the filing of Form 1120-REIT for 2012, to
qualify as a real estate investment trust, or REIT, for federal
income tax purposes. The Company was formed on November 28, 2012
to invest in income-producing real estate in the United States
through the acquisition of Apple REIT Six, Inc. ("Apple Six") on
behalf of BRE Select Hotels Holdings LP ("BRE Holdings"), a
Delaware limited partnership and an affiliate of the Company. 100%
of the common stock of the Company is owned by BRE Holdings, which
is an affiliate of Blackstone Real Estate Partners VII L.P.
("Sponsor"). The acquisition of Apple Six was completed on May 14,
2013 ("Acquisition Date"). As of June 30, 2014, the Company owned
63 hotels located in 18 states with an aggregate of 7,426 rooms.


BOULDER BRANDS: "Aguilar" Plaintiffs Can Amend Labeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the consumer class action captioned MARIA AGUILAR, Plaintiff,
v. BOULDER BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-
01862-BTM-BGS, (S.D. Cal.), Ms. Aguilar alleges that defendants
engaged in false and misleading advertising by marketing butter
with labels stating that "100mg Plant Sterols Helps Block
Cholesterol in the Butter" and that the plant sterols "help block
the absorption of dietary cholesterol in the butter."

The Plaintiff moved for leave to file a second amended complaint.
The Plaintiff subsequently moved for leave to further amend the
proposed second amended complaint by substituting a new proposed
class representative.

Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz grants the Plaintiff's
motion seeking leave to amend by filing a Second Amended
Complaint, and also grants the Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to
further amend the proposed Second Amended Complaint by
substituting Elizabeth Mitchell as named plaintiff and class
representative in place of Maria Aguilar. Further, the Court
denies without prejudice Plaintiff's request for a protective
order barring Ms. Aguilar from being deposed. Any motion for a
protective order must be raised before the Magistrate Judge. The
Second Amended Complaint must be filed within 14 days of the entry
of the Order.

A copy of Judge Moskowitz's September 2, 2014 order is available
at http://is.gd/5K49A0 from Leagle.com.

Maria Aguilar, Plaintiff, represented by Manfred Patrick Muecke,
Jr. -- mmuecke@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint
PC, Patricia N Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, Stewart Weltman --
sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com -- Stewart M. Weltman LLC, Elaine A.
Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint,
PC, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com --
Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker, P.C., Lindsey
Gomez-Gray -- lgomez@bffb.com --, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &
Balint, PC & Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@mpnsb.com -- Meiselman,
Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker, P.C..

GFA Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil R. O'Hanlon --
ohanlon@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robert B.
Wolinsky -- robert.wolinsky@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US,
LLP & Steven P. Hollman -- steven.hollman@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US, LLP.

Boulder Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil R. O'Hanlon,
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Robert B. Wolinsky, Hogan Lovells US, LLP &
Steven P. Hollman, Hogan Lovells US, LLP.


CASTELLINO CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Delgado Case"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In ANDREW DELGADO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. CASTELLINO CORPORATION, d/b/a Via Toscana;
and ROBIN CASTELLINO, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-03379-
MSK-MJW, (D. Col.), Mr. Delgado is a former employee of a business
owned by the Defendants.  He commenced this action alleging that
the Defendants failed to pay him the minimum wage required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.,
and related claims arising under Colorado's Wage Claim Act, C.R.S.
Section 8-4-101, and common-law breach of contract. Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), Mr. Delgado seeks to bring his FLSA claim
as a "collective action"1 on behalf of all similarly-situated
employees who ultimately opt-in to such an action.

The Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Delgado's FLSA claims.  The
Court referred the Defendants' motion to the Magistrate Judge for
a recommendation, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
motion be denied.

In an opinion and order dated September 2, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/MgYjspfrom Leagle.com, Chief Judge
Marcia S. Krieger overruled the Defendants' objections and adopts
the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, albeit on slightly
different grounds. The Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied.

Andrew Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by Brian David Gonzales --
Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- Brian D. Gonzales, The Law
Offices of.

Castellino Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen M.
Dehoff -- sdehoff@fortislawpartners.com -- Fortis Law Partners LLC
d/b/a Friesen Lamb LLP.

Robin Castellino, Defendant, represented by Stephen M. Dehoff,
Fortis Law Partners LLC d/b/a Friesen Lamb LLP.


CENTENE COMPANY: Obtains Partial Summary Judgment in Clark Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHY CLARK, AMY ENDSLEY, SUSAN GRIMMETT, MARGUERIETTE SCHMOLL,
and KEVIN ULRICH, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS, L.P.,
Defendant, CASE NO. A-12-CA-174-SS, (W.D. Tex.) is a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action brought by a number of
utilization review nurses against their employer, Centene Company
of Texas, to recover unpaid overtime wages.

The Court previously conditionally certified a class of
utilization review nurses. Both sides have filed summary judgment
motions on a handful of issues, though both motions focus heavily
on Centene's alleged FLSA exemption defenses. Centene has also
moved to decertify the class on the basis the 25 opt-in plaintiffs
are not similarly situated to the named plaintiffs.

Centene argued the Plaintiffs in this case are not similarly
situated. At the same time, Centene moved for summary judgment on
multiple exemption defenses, asserting all the plaintiffs, despite
their apparent differences, are subject to the same exemptions.

District Judge Sam Sparks, in an order dated September 2, 2014, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ipVZDpfrom Leagle.com,
concluded that Centene has adeptly identified numerous differences
between individual plaintiffs, but none so material as to prevent
them from being similarly situated to one another.  Accordingly,
Centene's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and
denied in part.  Centene's motion to decertify is denied.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is
granted in part and denied in part.

Kathy Clark, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio --
abaggio@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Rachhana T. Srey --
srey@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, David G.
Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC & Thomas Bradley Bleich, Dunham &
Jones, Attorneys at Law, P.C.

Amy Endsley, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson,
PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC & Thomas Bradley
Bleich, Dunham & Jones, Attorneys at Law, P.C.

Susan Grimmett, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson,
PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC & Thomas Bradley
Bleich, Dunham & Jones, Attorneys at Law, P.C.

Margueriette Schmoll, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M.
Baggio, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster &
Anderson, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC & Thomas
Bradley Bleich, Dunham & Jones, Attorneys at Law, P.C.

Kevin Ulrich, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson,
PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC & Thomas Bradley
Bleich, Dunham & Jones, Attorneys at Law, P.C.

Karen Calabrese, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Sunshine Hartnagel, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Yasira Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Norma Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Cynthia Cantu, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Rose Guajardo, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Sherri Hodsdon, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Rita Valdez, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Julia DeLeon, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Maricela Graciano-Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M.
Baggio, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law
Firm, PC & Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Penny Riley, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Winston Pubien, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Jane Townsend, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Gabriel Mendiola, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Christina Vaughn, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Cordelia Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Cervantez, Angelita, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M.
Baggio, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law
Firm, PC & Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Emily English, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Anna Serratos, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Jill Galvan, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Karen Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Jose, Jr. Longoria, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Laureen Sparrow, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Timothy Centeno, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Carolyn Garza, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander M. Baggio,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, David G. Langenfeld, Dunham Law Firm, PC &
Rachhana T. Srey, Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP.

Centene Company of Texas, L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Golden -- mike@boulettegolden.com -- Boulette & Golden L.L.P.,
Jeremy M. Brenner -- jbrenner@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, Jovita M. Foster -- jfoster@armstrongteasdale.com --
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP & Robert A. Kaiser --
rkaiser@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Hearing Held on Motion to Strike
----------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2014, for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2014, that a current
restaurant hourly employee filed on April 11, 2013, a class action
lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer County, alleging
that The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated violated the California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).
A similar lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed
in Placer County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.
et al; Case No. S CV 27073).

By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer the Reed and Sikora
cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases (Case Nos. SCV0032820 and
S CV 2703) were subsequently coordinated together in Los Angeles
County by order of the Judicial Council.

On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
causes of action raised in Case No. SCV003820, which motion was
currently scheduled for hearing on September 10, 2014.

The Cheesecake Factory is an upscale casual dining concept that
offers more than 200 menu items including appetizers, pizza,
seafood, steaks, chicken, burgers, specialty items, pastas,
salads, sandwiches, omelettes and desserts, including
approximately 50 varieties of cheesecakes and other baked
desserts.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Arbitrator Approved Confidential Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2014, for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2014, that the
Company is arbitrating uniform and related issues under federal
law in separate collective actions in Alabama, Colorado, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Texas (Smith v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc. et al; Case No. 3 06 0829).

The Company said, "On October 24, 2013, the arbitrator in the
Tennessee matter (Case No. 3 06 0829) denied summary judgment
motions filed both by the claimants and by us on the uniform
issue.  In January 2013, the arbitrator in the Ohio matter (Case
No. 3 06 0829) ruled in favor of the Company on the material
claims raised in the Ohio arbitration, including uniform, minimum
wage and overtime issues, while finding in favor of the claimants
on two non-material claims.  The claimants then filed a motion to
vacate the Ohio arbitration decision.  These lawsuits and
arbitrations sought unspecified amounts of penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the respective claimants and other
purported class members.  On May 29, 2014, the parties agreed to a
confidential settlement that was approved by the arbitrator in
Case No. 3 06 0829.  We expensed an immaterial amount for this
settlement in the first quarter of fiscal 2014."

The Cheesecake Factory is an upscale casual dining concept that
offers more than 200 menu items including appetizers, pizza,
seafood, steaks, chicken, burgers, specialty items, pastas,
salads, sandwiches, omelettes and desserts, including
approximately 50 varieties of cheesecakes and other baked
desserts.


CITIC LTD: SFC Files Class Action Over Investor Losses
------------------------------------------------------
Imogene Wong, writing for The Standard, reports that the
Securities and Futures Commission on Sept. 11 sought legal action
against CITIC Ltd (0267), its former chairman Larry Yung Chi-kin,
ex-managing director Henry Fan Hung-ling and other three former
executives to compensate 4,500 investors who lost money due to the
firm's HK$15.5 billion worth of wrong foreign exchange bets six
years back.

The watchdog alleges the 4,500 shareholders bought shares of the
firm, formerly known as CITIC Pacific, based on false information.

But the actual amount of compensation would be decided by the
Court of First Instance, the SFC said.

Its move comes just two weeks after CITIC Ltd absorbed billions of
dollars worth of assets from parent CITIC Group and changed its
name.

SFC is also seeking sanctions against five former directors of
CITIC Ltd and the conglomerate itself.  This may result in the
Market Misconduct Tribunal imposing fines and banning individuals
from serving with other corporations.

The case can be first traced back to September 12, 2008, when
CITIC Pacific said: "The directors are not aware of any adverse
material change in the financial or trading position of the group
since December 31, 2007 . . ."

However, in a profit warning on October 20, 2008, when trading in
the shares was suspended, the firm said it suffered from losses on
Australian dollar foreign exchange contracts.  The announcement
also revealed CITIC had become aware of such an exposure on
September 7.

The company incurred a loss of US$2 billion from the forex
derivatives, also known as accumulators or colloquially as "I kill
you later."

The shares then dived 55 percent from HK$14.52 to HK$6.52 on
October 21.  From September 12 to October 20, about HK$1.9 billion
worth of CITIC Ltd shares were purchased at an average price of
HK$18.97, the SFC said.

Considering about 100 million shares were purchased, the
compensation could be HK$2 billion given the highest purchased
price was HK$24.50 and the lowest was HK$3.66.

Former Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing director David Webb said
he will be disappointed if the Department of Justice decides not
to proceed with a criminal suit against the company and its former
directors.

But the Securities and Futures Ordinance suggests a person cannot
be prosecuted for a criminal offense at the same time as he is
being subjected to civil proceedings for the same conduct before
the Market Misconduct Tribunal.

The commission has probed the case for six years, so the period
during which civil litigation can be filed has almost expired.

A small investor named Yip said he will be happy if he can reclaim
his losses.

A few investors tried to take Yung to the Small Claims Tribunal
but he applied to transfer the case to the High Court, where legal
costs are much higher.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sued for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Braquelle Lawson, Ramonica Manney, Okayla Williams, Christopher
Williams, Melissa Cooper and Joyce Bass, on Behalf of Themselves
and all Others Similarly Situated v. Community Health Systems,
Inc., A Delaware Corporation; Community Health Systems
Professional Services Corporation, A Delaware Corporation; River
Oaks Hospital, LLC, A Mississippi Corporation; Vicksburg
Healthcare, LLC, d/b/a River Region Medical Center d/b/a River
Region Health Systems, A Delaware Corporation; Crossgates River
Oaks Hospital, LLC, A Mississippi Corporation; Madison River Oaks
Medical Center, d/b/a Madison River Oaks Hospital, a Mississippi
Corporation; Central Mississippi Medical Center, a Mississippi
Corporation; and Natchez Community Hospital, LLC, a Mississippi
Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00712-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss., September
11, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley S. Clanton, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          P. O. Box 14167
          4268 I-55 North
          Meadowbrook Office Park (39211)
          Jackson, MS 39236-4167
          Telephone: (601) 351-8953
          E-mail: bclanton@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Joe N. Tatum, Esq.
          TATUM & WADE, PLLC
          P.O. Box 22688
          Jackson, MS 39225-2688
          Telephone: (601) 948-7770
          E-mail: jntatum@aol.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Violates FDCPA, New York Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliezer T. Preisler, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-05320 (E.D.N.Y., September 11, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


DARIN GORDON: Court Certifies Class in "Wilson" Case
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Todd J. Campbell certified the class in the case
captioned MELISSA WILSON, v. DARIN GORDON, et al., NO. 3-14-1492,
(M.D. Tenn.).

The Court, in its order dated September 2, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/hau32hfrom Leagle.com, certified the
class defined as all individuals who have applied for Medicaid
(TennCare) on or after October 1, 2013, who have not received a
final eligibility determination in 45 days (or in the case of
disability applicants, 90 days), and who have not been given the
opportunity for a "fair hearing" by the State Defendants after
these time periods have run.

In addition, the Court appointed the attorneys of record from the
Tennessee Justice Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the
National Health Law Program as class counsel.

Melissa Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman
-- ccoleman@tnjustice.org -- Tennessee Justice Center, Elizabeth
Edwards -- edwards@healthlaw.org -- National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr. -- gbonnyman@tnjustice.org --
Tennessee Justice Center, Jane Perkins -- perkins@healthlaw.org --
National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson --
mjohnson@tnjustice.org -- Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel
Brooke -- samuel.brooke@splcenter.org -- Southern Poverty Law
Center, Sara Zampierin -- sara.zampierin@splcenter.org -- Southern
Poverty Law Center & James M. Knoepp -- Jim.Knoepp@splcenter.org.
-- Southern Poverty Law Center.

April Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman,
Tennessee Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law
Program, George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center,
Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mohammed Mossa, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman,
Tennessee Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law
Program, George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center,
Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mayan Said, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman,
Tennessee Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law
Program, George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center,
Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

S.P., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

K.P., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

T.V., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

C.A., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

D.A., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

S.V., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

S.G., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Coleman, Tennessee
Justice Center, Elizabeth Edwards, National Health Law Program,
George Gordon Bonnyman, Jr., Tennessee Justice Center, Jane
Perkins, National Health Law Program, Michele M. Johnson,
Tennessee Justice Center, Inc., Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty
Law Center, Sara Zampierin, Southern Poverty Law Center & James M.
Knoepp, Southern Poverty Law Center.

Darin Gordon, Defendant, represented by Brian Barnes --
bbarnes@cooperkirk.com -- Cooper & Kirk, Michael W. Kirk --
mkirk@cooperkirk.com -- Cooper & Kirk, Carolyn E. Reed, Tennessee
Attorney General's Office, Leslie Ann Bridges, Tennessee Attorney
General's Office, Linda A. Ross, Tennessee Attorney General's
Office & Nicole J. Moss -- nmoss@cooperkirk.com -- Cooper & Kirk.

Larry B. Martin, Defendant, represented by Brian Barnes, Cooper &
Kirk, Michael W. Kirk, Cooper & Kirk, Carolyn E. Reed, Tennessee
Attorney General's Office, Leslie Ann Bridges, Tennessee Attorney
General's Office, Linda A. Ross, Tennessee Attorney General's
Office & Nicole J. Moss, Cooper & Kirk.

Dr. Raquel Hatter, Defendant, represented by Brian Barnes, Cooper
& Kirk, Michael W. Kirk, Cooper & Kirk, Carolyn E. Reed, Tennessee
Attorney General's Office, Leslie Ann Bridges, Tennessee Attorney
General's Office, Linda A. Ross, Tennessee Attorney General's
Office & Nicole J. Moss, Cooper & Kirk.

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Mark H.
Wildasin, Office of the United States Attorney.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Diaz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
JORGE DIAZ AND OLGA L. GARCIA, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-22583-CIV-
GAYLES/TURNOFF, (S.D. Fla.) is before the court on Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

District Judge Darrin P. Gayles ruled that all counts of the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. The
action will be closed for administrative purposes, and all pending
motions are denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Gayles' September 2, 2014 order of dismissal is
available at http://is.gd/OCLvtWfrom Leagle.com.

Jorge Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Jill Barnet-Backer --
kbacker@lawofficeslaley.com -- La Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A.

Olga L. Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Jill Barnet-
Backer, La Ley Con John H. Ruiz, P.A.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Defendant, represented by
David B. Esau -- desau@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields PA &
Charles Woodward Throckmorton -- cwt@kttlaw.com -- V, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Defendant, represented by
David B. Esau, Carlton Fields PA & Charles Woodward Throckmorton,
V, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A..

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David B. Esau,
Carlton Fields PA & Charles Woodward Throckmorton, V, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A..


DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces "Hughes" Action for Fixing Price of Silver
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Hughes v. Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, and The
Bank of Nova Scotia, Case No. 1:14-cv-07357 (S.D.N.Y., September
11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a blatant price
fixing scheme to manipulate the price of physical silver and the
prices of silver derivatives, including COMEX silver futures
contracts.

The Defendants are considered as the world's three largest silver
bullion banks.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
      J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
      Matthew Ruan, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
      E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
              drichards@cohenmilstein.com
              mruan@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
      Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
              elevens@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

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


DGC RESTAURANT: Court Awards Atty. Fees and Costs in "Huang" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XING-FANG HUANG, et al., Plaintiff, v. DGC RESTAURANT, INC., et
al., Defendants, NO. 14-10096-JGD, (D. Mass.) is before the court
on the "Plaintiffs' Motion for a Mandatory Award of Costs and
Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)".  Under this
motion, the plaintiffs are seeking attorneys' fees of $36,020 and
expenses of $2,213.83 in connection with this action for overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
201 et seq. While originally brought as a class action, the court
denied the plaintiffs' original motion for conditional class
certification. The plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion for
conditional class certification. However, the case was settled
promptly thereafter, with payment made only to the three named
plaintiffs. The amount of the settlement was the full amount of
the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendants have opposed the motion for fees and costs on
various grounds.

Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein held in her memorandum of
decision and order dated September 2, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/3KKJFNfrom Leagle.com, that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to be compensated for the work done in
connection with the motions for conditional class certification.
Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for fees and costs is allowed in
part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are awarded $27,452.50 in fees
and $2,213.83 in expenses, for a total award of $29,666.33.

Xing-Fang Huang, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey P. Wiesner --
jwiesner@sswg.com -- Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin & Myong J.
Joun -- mjoun@massrights.com -- Joun Law Offices.

Zhi-Fang Han, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey P. Wiesner, Stern,
Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin & Myong J. Joun, Joun Law Offices.

Guang-He Liu, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey P. Wiesner, Stern,
Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin & Myong J. Joun, Joun Law Offices.

DGC Restaurant, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard P McClure,
Law Office of Richard PJ. McClure.

Stephen Dong, Defendant, represented by Richard P McClure, Law
Office of Richard PJ. McClure.

Xiaomei Guan, Defendant, represented by Richard P McClure, Law
Office of Richard PJ. McClure.


DIODES INCORPORATED: No Hearing Date Set on Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company is
currently a party to a putative securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust
Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00247 (E.D. Tex.
filed Mar. 15, 2013), (the "Class Action") against the Company,
Dr. Lu and Richard D. White. In this action, plaintiff purportedly
on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the Company's
Common Stock between February 9, 2011 and June 9, 2011, alleges
that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly
misleading public statements during the class period regarding the
labor market in China and its impact on the Company's business and
prospects.

On June 14, 2013, the Court entered an order appointing Local 731
I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund as lead
plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead plaintiff's counsel and the Ward &
Smith Law Firm as lead plaintiff's liaison counsel. On August 1,
2013, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint reiterating the
same claims for relief against the same defendants as asserted in
the original complaint.

On September 16, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Lead plaintiff's opposition to defendants'
motion to dismiss was filed on October 31, 2013. No hearing date
has been set for this motion.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery and other proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on
any motion to dismiss. The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.

Diodes Incorporated is a global manufacturer and supplier of high-
quality, application specific standard products within the broad
discrete, logic and analog semiconductor markets, serving the
consumer electronics, computing, communications, industrial and
automotive markets.


DS SERVICES: Settled Privacy Lawsuit for $2,000,000
---------------------------------------------------
DS Services Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that the Company is party to
a putative class action lawsuit in California alleging that it
violated certain privacy obligations by recording calls made
through its call centers.  During Year to Date Predecessor 2013,
the Company recorded a $2,000,000 liability in its Unaudited
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet in connection with this
lawsuit.  During Quarter Successor 2014, the court gave final
approval on an agreement to settle this lawsuit for $2,000,000.
The Company paid $2,000,000 in connection with this lawsuit during
Quarter Successor 2014.

The Company settled a separate coverage action with its insurance
carriers with respect to coverage for the lawsuit for $1,000,000.

Under the Merger Agreement, any insurance proceeds received by the
Company related to this lawsuit are required to be paid to DSW
Group Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Seller"). The Company received the $1,000,000 in insurance
proceeds in the first quarter ending March 28, 2014 and paid such
proceeds to the Seller.

DS Services Holdings is a national direct-to-consumer provider of
bottled water, office coffee service and water filtration
services.


DS SERVICES: To Settle Wage and Hour Lawsuits for $2,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
DS Services Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014, that during the first
quarter of 2014, the Company reached a binding agreement to settle
two putative class action lawsuits in California alleging that it
violated certain obligations under California and federal wage and
hour laws for $2,000,000 which agreement was subject to court
approval. The Company subsequently recorded a $2,000,000 liability
in its Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet during the
first quarter of 2014 in connection with this lawsuit. The court
preliminarily approved the agreement to settle both lawsuits for
$2,000,000 during Quarter Successor 2014. The Company expects to
pay $2,000,000 to settle both lawsuits during the three-month
period ending September 26, 2014.

DS Services Holdings is a national direct-to-consumer provider of
bottled water, office coffee service and water filtration
services.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Case in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the
Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum
Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum
conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for
drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law.
The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to increase prices through the announcement and
implementation of coordinated price increases, output
restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to
American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include
CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North
America, Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO Building Products LLC. The
plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits bring claims on behalf
of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of wallboard
during various periods from 2008 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief in various United States district courts,
including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District
of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. On July
29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints,
denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price
of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims.

While American Gypsum's production of written discovery is
substantially complete, discovery is ongoing.

"Due to the fact that the case is in the discovery phase, and the
plaintiffs have not specified the amount of any damages they are
seeking, we are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably
possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. American
Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will
vigorously defend itself against these claims," the Company said.

Eagle Materials Inc. is a diversified producer of basic building
products used in residential, industrial, commercial and
infrastructure construction.


EPICOR SOFTWARE: Oct. 24 Final Approval Hearing of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Epicor Software Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in connection with
the announcement of the proposed acquisition of Epicor Software
Corporation ("Legacy Epicor") by funds advised by Apax Partners,
L.P. ("Apax") in April 2011, four putative stockholder class
action suits were filed in the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, and two such suits were filed in Delaware Chancery
Court. The actions filed in California were entitled Kline v.
Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 6, 2011); Tola v. Epicor
Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 8, 2011); Watt v. Epicor
Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 11, 2011), and Frazer v. Epicor
Software et al., (filed Apr. 15, 2011). The actions filed in
Delaware were entitled Field Family Trust Co. v. Epicor Software
Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 12, 2011) and Hull v. Klaus et al.,
(filed Apr. 22, 2011). Amended complaints were filed in the Tola
and Field Family Trust actions on April 13, 2011 and April 14,
2011, respectively. Plaintiff Kline dismissed his lawsuit on April
18, 2011 and shortly thereafter filed an action in federal
district court. Kline then dismissed his federal lawsuit on July
22, 2011. The state court suits alleged that the Legacy Epicor
directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care,
among others, by seeking to complete the sale of Legacy Epicor to
funds advised by Apax through an allegedly unfair process and for
an unfair price and by omitting material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that
Legacy Epicor filed on April 11, 2011 with the SEC. The complaints
also alleged that Legacy Epicor, Apax Partners, L.P. and Element
Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the directors in the alleged
breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought certification as
a class and relief that included, among other things, an order
enjoining the tender offer and merger, rescission of the merger,
and payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. On April 25,
2011, plaintiff Hull filed a motion in Delaware Chancery Court for
a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the parties from taking
any action to consummate the transaction. On April 28, 2011,
plaintiff Hull withdrew this motion. On December 30, 2011, Hull
dismissed his Delaware suit.

On May 2, 2011, after engaging in discovery, plaintiffs advised
that they did not intend to seek injunctive relief in connection
with the merger, but would instead file an amended complaint
seeking damages in California Superior Court following the
consummation of the tender offer. On May 11, 2011, the Superior
Court for the County of Orange entered an Order consolidating the
Tola, Watt, and Frazer cases pursuant to a joint stipulation of
the parties. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on
September 1, 2011, which made essentially the same claims as the
original complaints. Plaintiffs Kline and Field Family Trust have
both joined in the amended complaint.

The Company filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to this amended
complaint on September 29, 2011. The demurrers were heard on
December 12, 2011, and the Court overruled them. The Defendants
answered the Complaint on December 22, 2011. On June 22, 2012, the
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and
dismissed Mr. Hackworth as a defendant.

After the parties had completed fact discovery and begun expert
discovery, plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add
two new defendants, the Company's former chief financial officer
and the Company's former financial advisor, Moelis & Company. On
February 22, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs leave, and
plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed. On April 5, 2013,
pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court dismissed
Legacy Epicor from this action with prejudice. On April 29, 2013,
the Court overruled demurrers by the new defendants to the Third
Amended Complaint.

"Although we believed this lawsuit was without merit and have
vigorously defended against the claims, the parties engaged in a
mediation on October 21, 2013. Following the mediation, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action,
subject to the approval of the Court. On May 23, 2014, the Court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and ordered the
creation of a settlement fund of $18 million from the various
defendants and their insurers. The Court also scheduled a final
settlement hearing for October 24, 2014. During the three months
ended June 30, 2014, we paid $7.7 million to settle our portion of
the litigation. As of June 30, 2014, we do not believe we will pay
any additional amounts for the litigation, and as such, we have no
remaining liability recorded for the litigation as of June 30,
2014," the Company said.

Epicor is a global provider of enterprise application software and
services focused on small and mid-sized companies and the
divisions and subsidiaries of Global 1000 enterprises.


F.N.B. CORPORATION: "Parshall" Plaintiff Filed Amended Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
F.N.B. Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported shareholder
of OBA Financial Services, Inc. filed on May 7, 2014, a putative
class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, captioned Parshall v. OBA Financial Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 390369V, and naming as defendants OBA, OBA Bank,
OBA's board of directors, F.N.B. Corporation and FNBPA. The
plaintiff alleged that OBA's board of directors breached its
fiduciary duty to OBA's shareholders by approving a proposed
transaction containing certain so-called "deal protection devices"
and, as a result, OBA's shareholders will allegedly not receive
fair value for their stock. The plaintiff further alleged that
OBA, OBA Bank, F.N.B. Corporation and FNBPA aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the OBA board.

In the complaint, the plaintiff sought an injunction barring the
defendants from completing the merger; rescission of the merger
agreement to the extent already implemented or, in the
alternative, an award of rescissory damages; an accounting to
plaintiff for all damages caused by the defendants; and an award
of the costs and expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the
lawsuit, including a reasonable allowance for counsel fees and
expert fees.

On July 3, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint with
additional allegations regarding certain purported nondisclosures
relating to the registration statement for the proposed
transaction, which was filed with the SEC on June 16, 2014.  In
the amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks the same relief as he
did in his original complaint.

Based on the facts known to date, F.N.B. Corporation and FNBPA
believe that the claims asserted in the amended complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation.

F.N.B. Corporation, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is
a diversified financial services company operating in six states
and three major metropolitan areas, including Pittsburgh,
Baltimore, Maryland and Cleveland, Ohio.


FBR & CO: Court of Appeals Affirmed District Court Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that FBR Capital Markets & Co.
("FBRCM") was named a defendant in the putative class action
lawsuit MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v. United Western
Bancorp, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. The complaint, filed in March 2011 against
United Western Bancorp, Inc. (the "Bank"), its officers and
directors, underwriters and outside auditors, alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Bank's September 2009
offering. On December 19, 2012 the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action complaint with prejudice and
entered final judgment for the underwriters. Class plaintiffs
filed a timely notice of appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals, challenging the District Court's findings, and on August
1, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's
judgment.


FLEETMATICS GROUP: Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetmatics Group PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on August 14, 2012, in the Sixth Judicial
Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled U.S. Prisoner
Transport, et al. v. FleetMatics USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1200-
9933 CI-20. We removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on September 13, 2012,
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. FleetMatics USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 8:12-CV-2079.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and
changed the case caption to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S.
Prisoner Transport, et al. v. FleetMatics USA, LLC, et al.

"We moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 18, 2012.
The Court denied our motion to dismiss in part and granted it in
part on September 27, 2013, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a
second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on October 11, 2013. The second amended complaint
alleges essentially the same claims as previously alleged. On
January 21, 2014, the parties executed an agreement to a
settlement with class members for an aggregate of $525,000, which
was subject to Court approval. On June 27, 2014, the court granted
final approval of the settlement and dismissed the case with
prejudice," the Company said.

Fleetmatics is a global provider of mobile workforce solutions for
service-based businesses of all sizes delivered as software-as-a-
service, or SaaS.


FOUR AMBASSADORS: "Posada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Isabel Posada, and others similarly-situated individuals v.
Four Ambassadors Entertainment, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. 1:14-cv-23368 (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages, attorney's fees or costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Four Ambassadors Entertainment owns and operates hotel and
restaurant in Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD MOTOR: Dist. Court Dismisses "Durkee" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton dismissed the case captioned
MICHAEL DURKEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, NO. C 14-0617 PJH, (N.D. Cal.).

The complaint is a proposed class action, asserting causes of
action under the Song-Beverly Act, California Civil Code Section
1790, et seq.; the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200; and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code Section 1770, et seq.
Ford sought an order dismissing the complaint for failure to state
a claim.

The Court found that no amendment can cure the deficiencies in the
UCL and CLRA claims, and those causes of action were dismissed
with prejudice. The Song-Beverly Act cause of action is dismissed
with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed no later
than September 30, 2014. No new parties or claims may be added
without stipulation of the parties or leave of court, ruled Judge
Hamilton.

A copy of Judge Hamilton's September 2, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/0Ozzxiifrom Leagle.com.

Leslie Durkee, Plaintiff, represented by Steve Borislav Mikhov --
stevem@omlawllp.com -- O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Richard Michael
Wirtz -- rwirtz@wirtzlaw.com -- Wirtz Law APC & Mark D O'Connor,
O'Connor Mikhov, LLP.

Michael Durkee, Plaintiff, represented by Steve Borislav Mikhov,
O'Connor & Mikhov LLP, Richard Michael Wirtz, Wirtz Law APC & Mark
D O'Connor, O'Connor Mikhov, LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


GABRIEL ROEDER: Faces Class Action Over Actuarial Services
----------------------------------------------------------
Rod Meloni, writing for Local 4, reports that Gabriel Roeder Smith
and Co. is getting sued for its work advising the general pension
fund. The class-action suit Detroit retirees are looking for money
from the actuarial company outside of the bankruptcy.

Former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick borrowed nearly $1.5 billion in the
so-called "cops" deal to prop up both of Detroit's pension funds
-- general and police and fire.  That deal brought on the
bankruptcy.

Gabriel Roeder Smith and Co., of Southfield, started advising the
pension plan 75 years ago and is now facing Detroit pensioner's
wrath.

The retirees said Gabriel Roeder helped cause the mess "by
negligently, willfully, recklessly, wantonly and repeatedly
committing gross errors and failing to exercise due care and skill
in providing actuarial services to the plan, and in failing to
promptly discover and disclose those errors to the trustees,
defendant Gabriel Roeder breached its duties to the plan."  They
also claim the General Retirement System "knowingly acted in
concert with the plan trustees to further their self-interest, and
by agreeing to allow an underfunding scheme, which has greatly
impaired the system's financial soundness, the plan is one of the
nation's worst performing public pension systems.

The defendant's conduct has reportedly already resulted in the
loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of the plan's funds and
damages continue to mount.

Gabriel Roeder Smith and Co. released a statement in response, "We
deny all of the allegations in these lawsuits.  In our judgment,
they are based upon a complete misunderstanding of our role in
serving our clients.  We intend to vigorously defend against these
charges and are confident that we will prevail."


GAMESTOP INC: Wins Prelim. OK of $750K Deal to Settle Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
GameStop can pay $750,000 to settle a class action involving
California workers who say they were underpaid and not reimbursed
for business expenses, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a
federal court ruling.

The case is Thomas Lusby, et al. v. Gamestop, Inc., and Gamestop
Corporation, Case No. 12-CV-03783-HRL, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District Of California, San Jose
Division.


GYRODATA INC: Faces "Huval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Huval, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Gyrodata, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-02616 (S.D. Tex., September
11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages.

Gyrodata, Inc. provides directional wellbore survey technology to
the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


HARVARD AGENCY: Faces "Deodath" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sahadeo Deodath, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Harvard Agency Co., Inc., Kiamie 32nd
Street, Inc., Kiamie New York Corp., Kiamie-Princess Marion Realty
Corp., The Mayflower Agency Co., Inc., Windsor Management Corp.,
Don A. Kiamie, and Matthew Kiamie, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:14-cv-07362 (S.D.N.Y., September 11, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate commercial office space doing
business as Harvard Agency Co., Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HIGHER ONE: November 24 Fairness Hearing in Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that Higher One, Inc., and
HOH are defendants in a series of putative class action lawsuits
filed in 2012: Ashley Parker, et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc.
et al., filed on July 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division;
Jeanette Price et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed
on July 27, 2012 in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut; John Brandon Kent et al. v. Higher One
Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on August 17, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division; Jonathan Lanham et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et
al., filed on October 2, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division; Aisha
DeClue et al. v. Higher One, Inc., et al., filed on November 5,
2012 in the St. Louis County Circuit Court of Missouri; and Jill
Massey et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on
November 6, 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, East Saint Louis Division.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of
these cases to the District of Connecticut for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. The proceedings are referred to
as the "In re Higher One OneAccount Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation" or the "MDL." Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
amended complaint in the MDL that generally alleges, among other
things, violations of state consumer protection statutes
(predicated, in part, on alleged violations of ED rules and
violations of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act) and
various common law claims.

On April 22, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case,
which the court denied as moot on March 11, 2014 in light of the
parties' settlement.

"In October 2013, we reached an agreement in principle on the key
terms of a settlement that would resolve all of the above class
action litigation that was filed against us in 2012. In February
2014, we executed a settlement agreement, the terms of which
included a payment of $15.0 million to a settlement fund, an
agreement to pay the cost of notice to the class, and an agreement
to make and/or maintain certain practice changes. We made the
payment of $15.0 million to the settlement fund in February 2014,"
the Company said.  "On February 14, 2014, plaintiffs asked the
court to preliminarily approve the settlement. On June 2, 2014,
the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement,
directing that notice of the settlement be sent to the class,
setting relevant filing deadlines, and scheduling a final fairness
hearing for November 24, 2014. The court must approve the
settlement before it becomes final and binding. There is no
assurance that the court will approve the settlement. During the
year ended December 31, 2013, we recorded an accrual for an
estimated charge of $16.3 million to reflect our current estimate
of the resolution, inclusive of additional legal and other
administrative costs, based on the agreement in principle.  While
this estimate is consistent with our view of the current exposure
based on the signed settlement agreement, the actual loss or range
of such loss could vary materially from the current estimate if
the settlement is not finalized and approved."

Higher One Holdings, Inc., or HOH, is a provider of technology,
data analytics and payment services to the higher education
industry. HOH, through its subsidiaries, provides a comprehensive
suite of disbursement, payment and data analytics solutions
specifically designed for higher education institutions and their
students.


HIGHER ONE: Perez Filed Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on May 27, 2014, a
putative class action captioned Brian Perez v. Higher One
Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH shareholder
Brian Perez in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut. HOH and certain officers have been named as
defendants. Mr. Perez generally alleges that HOH and the other
named defendants made certain misrepresentations in public filings
in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks an
unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez seeks to represent a
class of any person who purchased HOH securities between August 7,
2012 and May 12, 2014.

On July 28, 2014, Mr. Perez filed a motion to be appointed lead
plaintiff.  No other motions to appoint lead plaintiff were filed.
Mr. Perez's motion remains pending.

None of the defendants have been served with the complaint, and
therefore none have responded to the complaint. HOH intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations. HOH is
currently unable to predict the outcome of this complaint and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss.

Higher One Holdings, Inc., or HOH, is a provider of technology,
data analytics and payment services to the higher education
industry. HOH, through its subsidiaries, provides a comprehensive
suite of disbursement, payment and data analytics solutions
specifically designed for higher education institutions and their
students.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Settles FHFA MBS Suit for $550 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that back in
December 2013, when star trial lawyer David Boies entered an
appearance for HSBC Holdings plc in the mortgage-backed securities
litigation brought by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the move
signaled that HSBC just might be willing to fight to the finish.
But like more than a dozen bank defendants before it, HSBC instead
opted on Sept. 12 to end its case with a megabucks settlement.

According to the settlement agreement, HSBC will pay $550 million
to resolve claims that it made misrepresentations regarding
mortgage-backed securities it sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
before the financial crisis.  Of all the banks sued by the FHFA,
only two have yet to settle: Nomura Holdings Inc. and Royal Bank
of Scotland Group plc.

The FHFA, Fannie and Freddie's conservator, hired Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan and Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman and
brought separate lawsuits against 18 big banks in 2011.  All told,
the complaints involved securities with a combined face value of
more than $200 billion.

Nearly all the cases were consolidated before U.S. District Judge
Denise Cote in Manhattan, who has sided with the FHFA on key legal
issues, including an argument by the defendants that the agency's
claims are time-barred.  Judge Cote allowed the banks to
immediately appeal that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, which affirmed the decision.  The appeals
court also brushed aside a mandamus petition in which the banks
complained that they were being "forced to proceed under a series
of gravely prejudicial rulings, some aimed at pressuring
petitioners to settle."

Without a lifeline from the Second Circuit, the banks have indeed
been settling in rapid succession. The FHFA has collected more
than $20 billion to settlements to date, including $9.5 billion
from Bank of America Corporation and $5.1 billion from JPMorgan
Chase & Co.

HSBC has long been represented by lawyers at Mayer Brown including
Michael Ware -- mware@mayerbrown.com -- Mark Hanchet --
mhanchet@mayerbrown.com -- and John Conlon --
jconlon@mayerbrown.com -- as well as Boies, Schiller & Flexner
attorneys including Andrew Michaelson -- amichaelson@bsfllp.com --
and Damien Marshall.  Mr. Boies, the firm's chairman, made a
formal appearance on the court docket on Dec. 20, 2013.  HSBC
faced a Sept. 29 trial date.

All eyes are now on Nomura and its lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell,
who face trial early next year.  RBS, which is represented by
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, is scheduled to go to trial after
Nomura in U.S. district court in Hartford.

The FHFA's lead counsel in the HSBC case is Philippe Selendy --
philippeselendy@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan.


INDYMAC BANCORP: Settles Underwriters' Class Action for $340MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
investors in mortgage-backed securities issued by IndyMac Bancorp
Inc. have settled their claims against the bank's underwriters.
But the IndyMac litigation lives on at the U.S. Supreme Court --
with important implications for the time limits that govern
securities class actions.

In a motion filed on Sept. 11 in U.S. district court in Manhattan,
lawyers for a class of IndyMac investors unveiled a $340 million
settlement with underwriters including Credit Suisse AG, Morgan
Stanley & Co. and Deutsche Bank AG.  The proposed deal resolves
claims that the underwriters duped pension funds and other large
investors into investing in about 50 MBS trusts sponsored by
IndyMac before its collapse.

The case, In re IndyMac Securities Litigation, is best known for
producing an important appeals court ruling on when the clock runs
out for filing MBS cases.  Splitting with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Second Circuit ruled in July
2013 that the filing of a securities class action doesn't toll the
applicable three-year statute of repose for class members to bring
similar claims (a statute of repose is like a statute of
limitations, but it begins to run earlier).

The ruling wasn't a fatal blow to plaintiffs counsel -- as
evidenced by the $340 million settlement they just announced --
but it has the potential to shrink other securities cases and can
only help defendants in years to come.  At the urging of
plaintiffs firms, the Supreme Court agreed in March to hear the
case in order to weigh in on whether a fundamental principle of
class action law -- that the commencement of a class action
suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to asserted
class members who'd be parties to the suit -- also applies in the
statute of repose context.

The Supreme Court only issues opinions when there's a "case or
controversy" to resolve, so at first glance the Sept. 11
settlement would seem to let the air out of the pending high court
appeal.  But that's not the case.  The settlement agreement makes
no mention of Goldman Sachs & Co., an underwriter that got dropped
from the litigation in light of the Second Circuit's stance on
class action tolling.  If the Supreme Court reverses the Second
Circuit, claims against Goldman would come back to life.

The court-designated lead plaintiff, a pension fund for Wyoming
state employees, alleged in an amended complaint that the
underwriters made misrepresentations in connection with dozens of
MBS trusts.  U.S. District Judge Kaplan in Manhattan gutted the
case on standing grounds in 2010, ruling that the Wyoming fund can
only sue over the few IndyMac MBS trusts in which it invested.
The plaintiffs firms driving the litigation sought to add to the
case pension funds that had invested in the trusts dismissed by
Judge Kaplan.  He denied their motions to intervene, ruling that
they'd been filed outside the three-year statute of repose in the
Securities Act of 1933.

The Second Circuit later complicated things.  In 2012, it ruled in
an unrelated case that MBS investors have standing to sue over
trusts they didn't invest in, effectively reversing Judge Kaplan's
2010 decision in the IndyMac litigation.  After that ruling came
down, Judge Kaplan reinstated dozens of IndyMac MBS trusts he
previously dropped from the case.

At that point, the motions to intervene became less important.
But the plaintiffs appealed Judge Kaplan's rulings on the
intervention issue anyway, since reversing them would restore more
trusts in the case and put Goldman Sachs back on the hook.  The
Second Circuit ended up affirming Judge Kaplan in July 2013,
siding with underwriters counsel Robert Serio --
rserio@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

In the Sept. 11 motion for settlement, plaintiffs counsel Joseph
Tobacco Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Nicole Lavallee --
nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- and Patrick Egan --
PEgan@BermanDeValerio.com -- of Berman DeValerio called the
settlement one of the largest in MBS litigation to date.


IMPERVA INC: Response to Class Action Not Yet Due
-------------------------------------------------
Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed on April 11, 2014, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against Imperva and certain of its officers. The lawsuit purports
to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased Imperva's
publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purports to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. A response to the complaint is not yet
due.

Imperva, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, the "Company" or
"we") was incorporated in April 2002 in Delaware. The Company is
headquartered in Redwood Shores, California and has subsidiaries
located throughout the world including Israel, Asia and Europe.
The Company is engaged in the development, marketing, sales,
service and support of data center security solutions that protect
high value applications and data assets in physical and virtual
data centers.


INTERNATIONAL SERVICES: Blume Suit Settlement Gets Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge David D. Noce signed memorandum and order on
September 2, 2014, approving the settlement in CHARLES BLUME,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants,
NO. 4:12 CV 165 DDN, (E.D. Mo.).

This is a collective class action, brought under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b), in which plaintiff Charles Blume represents a class of 166
current and former employees of International Services, Inc. (ISI
plaintiff class), all of whom have opted into the class. The
plaintiff class alleged that defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay them overtime wages to which they
were entitled and failed to pay them for all the hours they
actually worked.

Magistrate Judge Noce's order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/GNaVP1from Leagle.com, stated that the unopposed
motion of the Plaintiff Class for approval of the settlement of
the action and the release of the plaintiffs' claims under the
FLSA is sustained. The parties' Settlement Agreement and Release
of Claims is approved.

Ole Dam, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts --
werts@learwerts.com -- LEAR WERTS LLP.

Richard Dickieson, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Richard Dierback, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Vincent Donato, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Charlotte Gallagher, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Steven Goodfriend, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

John Hartman, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Fred Kendall, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Robert Larios, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Frederick Melenchuk, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Carol Ritchie, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Gary Sadavage, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Brian Sharf, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Richard Steinhoff, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Glen Bernstein, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Alan Braun, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Robert Hawkens, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Allan Jr. Kitterman, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Kenneth Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Thomas Peace, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Donna Pryor Kelsick, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Steven Douglas Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts,
LEAR WERTS LLP.

Arnold Robert Dick, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Kevin Scott Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Charles Blume, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR WERTS
LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Jesse James Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR
WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Lloyd Sherman, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR
WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Mark Myers, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR WERTS
LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Mark Zaksheske, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR
WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Gaston Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR
WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Peter Smith Kautzmann, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear,
LEAR WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Daniel Rutledge, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR
WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Howard Melvin Wayland, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B.
Lear, LEAR WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Robert Marcus Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts,
LEAR WERTS LLP.

Everett Archie, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Kenneth Bator, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Konrad Baumeister, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Patricia Biel, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Robert Blomquist, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Kenneth Butte, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Neil Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Bill Chambers, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Kent Crago, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

David Decker, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Richard Dolence, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts,
LEAR WERTS LLP.

Terrance Evitts, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

John D. Field, III, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Marc Frye, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

William Gary, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Thomas Graff, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Ikebal Gill, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

William Green, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Ray Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

David Griffith, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Robert Hahn, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Charles Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Cynthia Holcomb, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Ronald Howell, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Terry Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

David Kachelein, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Cindy Leddicotte, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Yoram Lehavdt, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Timothy Lloyd, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Jack Locker, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Robert Loya, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

James McQuaid, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Edward Mullin, III, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Todd Napolitano, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Brian Nicotero, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Ronald Paradis, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Russell Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

David Peters, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

John Pursell, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Peter Quigley, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Lawrence Reid, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Raymond Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

William Rodgers, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

David Roth, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Lawrence Rytter, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Steven Savluk, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Steven Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Robert Vanderveen, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Ren Verasco, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Paul Wakeland, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Thomas Warda, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

John Willis, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

James Yanus, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Daniel Beach, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Richard Danfy, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Albert Dolezal, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

James Duffy, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Philip Herr, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Robert Jamison, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Karrie Kai, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Samuel Lamia, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Barry Lay, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Jeffrey Marzendorfer, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts,
LEAR WERTS LLP.

Robert H. Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Mark Steven Myers, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Jon Owens, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Bill Sadak, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

David Seaman, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Allen P. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Barry Strom, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Robert Sughrue, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Gower Talley, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Stephen Watzek, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Martin Wilbanks, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

John A. Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Dennis Woolley, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Ishmael Baiza, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Noel Gimbel, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Don Green, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

R. Bryan Harrison, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Robert Lawson, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Kenneth Morrow, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Peter Nuzzo, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Cary Prejean, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Richard Rabin, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Catherine Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Barkley Sample, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Jerry Schulte, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Gary Shelton, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

James Single, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Jeaneen Spinelli, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Joseph Taylor III, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Edward Wiesner Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Douglas Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear, LEAR
WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Keith Allen Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B. Lear,
LEAR WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Thomas Nelson Tunstall, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B.
Lear, LEAR WERTS LLP & Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS LLP.

Joseph Angelo, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Michael Bull, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Glenn Byus, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Milan Callis, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Chris Drucker, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Christopher Ewald, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Neil Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Franklin Henriquez, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

John Kozub, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

David MacGill, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Mark Madeira, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Kevin Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Kevin McDonough, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

David Modica, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Hamid Mohyi, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

James O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Joseph Pirosko, III, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Neal Pleasant, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Kyle Ramsey, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Carol Janice Robison, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts,
LEAR WERTS LLP.

Thomas Rusco, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Michael Sallows, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Joel Shapiro, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Gregory Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

James DeMartino, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Rhett W. Fornof, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Martin Jerry Kliment, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts,
LEAR WERTS LLP.

Jeffrey Kolikof, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Scott Little, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Don Sander, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Matthew Straker, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

James Bonner, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Marcus Cooper, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Howard Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Arnold Dick, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR WERTS
LLP.

Geoffrey Jarvis, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

William Korner, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

Randal Schmidt, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Werts, LEAR
WERTS LLP.

International Services, Inc., formerly known as International
Profit Associates, Inc. also known as I.P.A., Defendant,
represented by Gary J. Wojtan -- garywojtan@aol.com -- WOJTAN AND
VALLONE, Jennifer A. Mueller -- broubal@blmlawyers.com -- BAIRD
AND LIGHTNER, P.C. & John R. Lightner -- jlightner@blmlawyers.com
-- BAIRD AND LIGHTNER, P.C.

ROI-North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary J. Wojtan,
WOJTAN AND VALLONE, Jennifer A. Mueller, BAIRD AND LIGHTNER, P.C.
& John R. Lightner, BAIRD AND LIGHTNER, P.C.

GPS USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary J. Wojtan, WOJTAN
AND VALLONE, Jennifer A. Mueller, BAIRD AND LIGHTNER, P.C. & John
R. Lightner, BAIRD AND LIGHTNER, P.C..

Integrated Business Analysis, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary
J. Wojtan, WOJTAN AND VALLONE, Jennifer A. Mueller, BAIRD AND
LIGHTNER, P.C. & John R. Lightner, BAIRD AND LIGHTNER, P.C.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Briefing Must Be Completed by July 2015
------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the Company became
aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed on December 5,
2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the Company and certain
of its current and former executive officers. The initial
complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the defendants
made false and misleading statements or omissions about the
Company's business prospects, financial condition and performance
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period from February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011 (the
"Allegation Period").

On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint,
which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to,
the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking
similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation
Period.

On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff,
and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action
("Consolidated Class Action"). On June 15, 2012, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint ("Consolidated Class Action
Complaint"), that in addition to the original allegations made in
the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in
Intralinks' April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration
statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material
information required to be stated therein in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The defendants filed their motions to dismiss on July 31, 2012. On
May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims based
on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise denied
defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013, defendants filed
their answers to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On
October 15, 2013, the Court entered the parties' pretrial
scheduling stipulation. In December 2013, the parties served each
other with document requests and discovery is ongoing.

On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. Pursuant to an amended scheduling order entered by
the Court on April 18, 2014, the defendants filed their opposition
to class certification on June 13, 2014, and lead plaintiff filed
its reply on July 18, 2014. Completion of summary judgment
briefing is scheduled for July 13, 2015.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Intralinks is a global provider of Software-as-a-Service, or SaaS,
solutions for secure content management and collaboration within
and among organizations.


IT'S JUST LUNCH: Defrauds Single Professionals, Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that the dating
service It's Just Lunch! is "a massive scheme to defraud single
professionals," and its services "are not only grossly deficient
and substandard in almost every aspect, but are simply not what
the company promised them," a class action claims.

Lead plaintiff Sarah Dunphy sued It's Just Lunch! in Bergen County
Court, along with its corporate parent Riverside Partners and
director Loren Schlachet.  Dunphy claims she paid $2,700 for the
service, only to be provided with men who were married, unemployed
and otherwise unsuitable.

The company claims on its website to be "the world's #1 personal
matchmaking service," and that it provides "personalized
matchmaking & dating services," "quality matches" and "guaranteed
dates."

Dunphy claims that "defendants market and sell their Internet
dating service as one that is tailored to the needs and desires of
busy and successful professionals who do not have the time to
search for interesting, like-minded individuals."

It's Just Lunch promises that its matchmaking service "will take
the legwork out of dating by outsourcing the search to insightful
professional matchmakers [who] will hand-select matches for you
based on the information we discuss in your interview and our
teams' skilled and successful matchmaking abilities!" according to
the lawsuit.

"The truth is, however, that defendants do no 'legwork,' and
defendants do not 'hand select' any individuals," the class
claims.  "Instead, dates are chosen at random, and the dating pool
is not based upon any special criteria or demographic."

Dunphy claims that the company "almost completely ignores the
customer's stated preferences.  Rather, the company forces its IJL
franchises to make matches which are driven entirely by monthly
quota requirements, and which wholly and categorically disregard
the customer's stated interests and preferences."  She claims that
while It's Just Lunch claims to hire staff members with "years of
experience," it "routinely hires staff members who have no
experience, training, or background whatsoever in the field of
matchmaking."

"Staff at IJL franchises use a basic scripted sales pitch to
uniformly and routinely make the same misrepresentations of fact
to prospective customers," which include claims that the company
"already has several so-called 'perfect' matches in its database
for the customer when in fact no such matches exist," according to
the complaint.

Dunphy says the company makes many other misrepresentations about
its service, including that is has "thousands of available members
in the customer's city, when in fact there are only hundreds or
even fewer members available in that city."  She says the company
claims that it "has an equal percentage of men and women in its
system, when in fact the number of women is grossly
disproportionate to the number of men in the system."

She claims that It's Just Lunch claims to be "selective" in whom
it allows to become members but then "accepts any and all persons
who are willing to pay its fees."  Finally, Dunphy says, the
company claims to "carefully match its customers with other
members, when in fact the matches are made at random and are often
done by individuals who have never even met the customer."

Dunphy says she spent $2,700 on the service, but "after being set
up with several 'matches,' [she] realized that defendants'
services were grossly deficient and substandard in almost every
aspect."  She claims that the defendants "blatantly misrepresented
the nature and quality of the services that they provided, as well
as the qualifications of other members in the system."

She says she "was specifically victimized by misrepresentations
concerning both the marital and employment status of dates
arranged by defendants."

And, she claims, It's Just Lunch is violating New Jersey's
Internet Dating Safety Act, which "mandates that Internet dating
services issue certain warnings concerning the dangers of Internet
dating, and certain advice on how one can protect oneself from
such dangers."

The act states that any Internet dating service operating in the
state "must make certain specific disclosures about whether it
conducts criminal background screenings on those who subscribe to
the service."  Dunphy claims It's Just Lunch doesn't do that.

Finally, she claims that "IJL corporate has also been the subject
of a consumer-fraud investigation conducted by
ConsumerAffairs.com," which found that it misled customers about
its service, business practices and membership.

It's Just Lunch did not respond to a request for comment.

Dunphy seeks class certification and damages for fraud and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Pinilis, Esq.
          PINILISHALPERN LLP
          160 Morris St.
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 401-1111
          E-mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com


J & T MANAGEMENT: Removed "Valentin" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Valentin v. J & T Management Inc.,
et al., Case No. 14-004481, was removed from the Circuit Court of
the Seventeenth Judicial District in and for Broward County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Ft Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 0:14-cv-62087-BB to the proceeding.

Plaintiff Rocio Valentin seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
minimum wage compensation, overtime compensation and additional
amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark J. Beutler, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS
          450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone (954) 525-4800
          Facsimile (954) 525-8739
          E-mail: mjbeutler@laborlawyers.com


JD HOGGS: Recalls Meat and Sausage Smokies Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           JD Hoggs Meat & Sausage
Distribution:             Manitoba
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9250

Affected products: 6 count JD Hoggs Meat & Sausage Jalapeno and
Cheese Smokies with all codes where milk is not declared on the
label.


JIMMY JOHN'S: Settles Class Action Over Missing Alfalfa Sprouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the absence of alfalfa sprouts may cost Jimmy John's LLC as much
as $725,000.  That is the total the restaurant chain has agreed to
put up to settle a class action brought by California plaintiff
Heather Starks, who was aggrieved that the vegetarian sandwich she
purchased in February 2012 did not contain alfalfa sprouts,
despite advertising to the contrary, according to a copy of the
settlement announcement for Starks v. Jimmy John's, filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court for the City of Los Angeles.

Included in the deal, formally reached last month, is an award of
$385,000 for attorneys fees and administrative expenses, $5,000
for Starks, and vouchers in the amount of $1.40 each for customers
who claim they, too, suffered from a lack of sprouts on such
sandwiches purchased between Feb. 1, 2012, and July 21, 2014.

Among the sproutless sandwiches advertised online, on menus and
elsewhere as containing the healthful ingredient were "Totally
Tuna," "Vegetarian," "Gourmet Veggie Club," and "Turkey Tom."  The
vouchers will be good for any side item -- pickle, potato chips or
cookie -- or a soda, the agreement states.

In her complaint, Starks alleged Jimmy Johns had engaged in
intentional and negligent misrepresentation, interference with
contract, fraud, along with violations of numerous California
business laws.

Jimmy John's denied all allegations and liability, and chose to
settle to "resolve the matter," the agreement states.  The
restaurant said it corrected all its menus by March 29, 2013.


JOHN WOOD: Recalls 50-Gallon Residential Water Heaters
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2014
Posting date:             September 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Specialized Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41333

Affected products: John Wood fifty-gallon propane fueled
residential water heaters

The recall involves approximately 85 John Wood fifty-gallon
propane fueled residential water heaters identified by model
number JW850S40P-AV1 301.  The affected water heaters were sold
between Aug. 2013 and February 2014.

The product is a grey, vertical, fifty-gallon, propane fueled,
atmospherically vented water heater designed for residential use.
Natural gas units are not affected.  The units bear a large John
Wood name and logo label at the top front of their metal jackets.
Beneath the logo, there is a large, circular label with the words
"FLAME GUARD" in large, red and blue lettering.  Beneath that,
there are several panels with warnings and instructions.

The serial number ranges for the potentially affected units are:

1332A012841 to 1332A012860,
1333A024744,
1334A007940 to 1334A007954,
1338A013942 to 1338A013966,
1338A028652 to 1338A028686.

The model number and serial number information can be found on the
unit's rating plate, which is beneath the warning and instruction
panels.  The rating plate sits just above, and slightly to the
left of, the gas valve on the bottom front of the unit.

The affected heaters may have been shipped with a small,
undesigned gap between the combustion chamber floor and the
manifold tube.  This may prevent the unit's flame arrestor from
operating as designed.  If this happens, there is an increased
potential risk of a fire and/or explosion if flammable vapors are
improperly used in the vicinity of the unit.

Health Canada, John Wood Water Heaters and A. O. Smith have not
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of these propane fueled water heaters.

Approximately 85 recalled units were sold in Canada.  As of
Sept. 1, 2014, 53 of these units have been remediated or replaced.

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold from Aug. 2013 to Feb. 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     John Wood Water Heaters
                   Fergus
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Customers should check the rating plate on their unit(s) to
determine if the model number reads JW850S40P-AV1 301.  If this is
the model number on their unit(s), they should then verify the
serial number on the rating plate and compare it against the list
of affected serial numbers listed in this notice.

If their unit is affected by this recall, customers may contact
John Wood customer service by telephone at 1-888-479-8324 to
schedule a repair, free of charge.


KAISER PERMANENTE: To Pay $4-Mil. Fine Over Mental Care Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Wallace, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Kaiser will pay a $4 million fine to California for "serious
deficiencies in providing access to mental health care services,"
the state says.

The California Department of Mental Health Services (DMHC) levied
the fine in June 2013 after a March 2013 survey showed
deficiencies in Kaiser's access to mental health care
appointments.

"The department's actions are a result of both the seriousness of
the deficiencies and the failure of Kaiser to promptly correct
them," DMHC Director Brent Barnhart said in a statement announcing
the fine.  "The Department is taking this action to ensure that
Kaiser promptly corrects these deficiencies and provides its
patients with the mental health care promised to them by their
health plan."

DMHC identified "four serious deficiencies in providing access to
mental health services."

The failures affect Kaiser's quality assurance systems, Kaiser's
monitoring of its provider network to ensure appointment waits
comply with regulatory timeframes, Kaiser's responses to
identified deficiencies, and the accuracy and clarity of Kaiser's
mental health education materials.

Kaiser did not have to admit guilt.

"We continue to disagree with the basis and size of the penalty as
excessive and disproportionate to the findings in the department's
survey," Kaiser said in a statement on its Web site.  "We believe
that we were not in violation of the timely access regulations and
that the DMHC penalized us even though we met the compliance
standards that the DMHC had expressly approved."

Courthouse News reported three class action lawsuits concerning
Kaiser's wait times for mental health appointments -- one in
January 2010 and two in November 2013.  In one case, a woman
claimed her husband had committed suicide while waiting to see a
psychiatrist.

In the latest class action against Kaiser, a family this week
accused Kaiser of illegally canceling insurance of mentally ill
people and dumping them on taxpayer-supported health care.

Sal Roselli, president of the National Union of Healthcare Workers
(NUHW), said in a statement: "By paying the fine, Kaiser finally
acknowledged its violations, but it has yet to take meaningful
steps to correct the underlying problems in its mental health care
system.  Until Kaiser fully staffs its psychiatry departments with
enough psychologists, therapists and social workers to handle the
ever-growing caseload and provide timely, quality care to their
mental health patients, this crisis is far from over.  Otherwise,
the problem could grow worse as Kaiser adds hundreds of thousands
new patients to its rolls in California and elsewhere through
health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act."


KFORCE INC: Expects Pending Appeal to be Dismissed Imminently
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 18, 2013, Kforce Inc., along with other staffing firms,
was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the
Orange County Superior Court of the State of California, Gunawan
v. Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, Inc. and Kforce, Inc., et
al., Case No. 30-2013-00657245-CU-OE-CXC. The plaintiff alleges
that a class of current and former Kforce employees working in
California was denied compensation for the time they spent
interviewing with clients of Kforce, over a period covering four
years prior to the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff seeks
recovery in an unspecified amount for this alleged unpaid
compensation, the alleged failure of Kforce to provide them with
accurate wage statements, the alleged improper use of debit cards
as an employee payment mechanism in certain circumstances, alleged
unfair competition, and statutory penalties, attorney's fees and
other damages.

On August 30, 2013, Kforce moved the matter to the U.S. District
Court of the Central District of California, Gunawan v. Howroyd-
Wright Employment Agency, Inc. and Kforce Inc., et al., Case No.
8:13cv1356. On January 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court of
Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor
of Kforce, except for the plaintiff's claim for waiting time
penalties, which is an individual claim and not part of the class
action. The federal court remanded the sole remaining individual
claim to state court, where the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
it.

On February 20, 2014, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the
district court's summary judgment decision with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Gunawan v. Kforce Inc.,
Case No. 14-55273. The matters now have been fully resolved.

"We expect the pending appeal will be dismissed imminently,
without any material effect on our consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows," Kforce Inc. said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2014.

Kforce Inc. and subsidiaries (collectively, "Kforce") provide
professional staffing services and solutions to customers in the
following segments: Technology ("Tech"), Finance and Accounting
("FA"), Health Information Management ("HIM") and Government
Solutions ("GS"). Kforce provides flexible staffing services and
solutions on both a temporary and full-time basis.


KIDDE CANADA: Recalls Smoke & Combination Smoke/CO Alarms
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2014
Posting date:             September 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41109

Affected products: The recall involves Kidde branded AC/DC powered
residential smoke alarms and combination smoke/CO alarms, models
KN-COSM-IBACA, i12010S-CO-CA and i12010S-CA.

Labels indicating the model number and date code are located on
the back of the device.  The date code consists of the year of
manufacture, the month of manufacture and the day of manufacture
in the YYYY Month XX format.

Should a power outage occur at the same second that the device is
performing a once-per-minute sensor health check, the device may
go into a "latched" mode, causing it not to alarm in the presence
of smoke and/or carbon monoxide.  An affected device will sound if
it receives a signal from an alarm in the same interconnected
system.  Once power is restored, a latched device will sound an
alarm regardless of the presence of smoke and/or carbon monoxide.

Neither Kidde nor Health Canada have received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products.  Kidde discovered the issue during an internal quality
check.

Approximately 112,000 units were sold in Canada at various
retailers and 670,000 units were sold in the United States.

Model KN-COSM-IBACA was sold between Jan. 2, 2014 and May 13,
2014.  Models i12010S-CO-CA and i12010SCA were sold between
April 17, 2014 and May 13, 2014.

The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Fyrnetics Limited
                    Hong Kong
                    China

   Distributor      Kidde Canada Inc.
                    Vaughan
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Customers should immediately check the model number and date code
on their smoke alarms or combination smoke and carbon monoxide
alarms to determine if any of their devices are included in the
recall.  If so, they should contact Kidde Canada toll-free at 1-
888-784-2323 between 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday regarding a free replacement smoke or combination smoke and
carbon monoxide alarm.  Consumers should not take the alarm out of
service until they receive a replacement.


KING BUICK: Court Dismisses Portion of Federal Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Numerous motions are pending and ready for resolution in the
putative class action civil RICO case captioned LATECHIA CHAMBERS,
et al. v. KING BUICK GMC, LLC, et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC 13-
2347, (D. Md.), including: (1) a motion to dismiss the federal
claims or to abstain filed by Defendants King Auto of Silver
Spring LLC; King Buick GMC, LLC; King Hagerstown Motors LLC; King
Lincoln, Inc.; King Vehicles, LLC; and King Volkswagen, LLC; (2) a
separate motion filed by King Buick GMC, LLC to dismiss the claims
in Counts I through VII of the amended complaint; (3) a motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on Counts I
through VII, filed by King Auto of Silver Spring, LLC; King
Hagerstown Motors LLC; King Lincoln, Inc.; King Vehicles, LLC; and
King Volkswagen, LLC; (4) a motion to consolidate cases filed by
Plaintiff Latechia Chambers; (5) a motion for leave to file
surreply and supplemental Rule 56(d) Declaration filed by
Plaintiff; and (6) a motion to strike three notices of
supplemental authority filed by Defendants.

In a memorandum opinion entered September 2, 2014, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/MJ2k0wfrom Leagle.com, District
Judge Deborah K. Chasanow ruled that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss federal claims or to abstain will be granted in part. King
Buick GMC's motion to dismiss will be granted in part, and the
other Defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment will
be granted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file surreply and
supplemental Rule 56(d) Affidavit and motion to consolidate cases
will be denied. Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's notices
of supplemental authority will also be denied.

Latechia Chambers, Plaintiff, represented by Richard S Gordon --
rgordon@gordon-wolf.com -- Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd., Mark
Harris Steinbach, O Toole Rothwell & Stacie F Dubnow --
sdubnow@gordon-wolf.com -- Gordon and Wolf Chtd.

King Buick GMC, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul J Maloney --
pjm@carrmaloney.com -- Carr Maloney PC, Andrew M Williamson --
amw@carrmaloney.com -- Carr Maloney PC & Steven M Nemeroff --
smn@wortmannemeroff.com -- Wortman and Nemeroff.

King Lincoln, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul J Maloney, Carr
Maloney PC, Andrew M Williamson, Carr Maloney PC & Steven M
Nemeroff, Wortman and Nemeroff.

King Auto of Silver Spring, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul J
Maloney, Carr Maloney PC, Andrew M Williamson, Carr Maloney PC &
Steven M Nemeroff, Wortman and Nemeroff.

King Vehicles, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul J Maloney, Carr
Maloney PC, Andrew M Williamson, Carr Maloney PC & Steven M
Nemeroff, Wortman and Nemeroff.

King Hagerstown Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul J
Maloney, Carr Maloney PC, Andrew M Williamson, Carr Maloney PC &
Steven M Nemeroff, Wortman and Nemeroff.

King Volkswagen, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul J Maloney,
Carr Maloney PC, Andrew M Williamson, Carr Maloney PC & Steven M
Nemeroff, Wortman and Nemeroff.


LAROCCA INTERNATIONAL: Fla. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Plasencia and other similarly situated individuals v.
Larocca International Coffee, Inc. and Claudio Larocca, Case No.
0:14-cv-62089 (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, damages, attorney's fees or costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Larocca International Coffee, Inc. is a coffee shop owned by
Claudio Larocca.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LENOVO INC: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers, on Sept. 11 disclosed that the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Southern
Division, has approved a preliminary settlement agreement in a
class action lawsuit against Lenovo, Inc. (Garrett Kacsuta and
Michael Wheeler v. Lenovo, Inc., Case No. SACV 13-00316-CJC
[RNBx]). The Order granting plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval was signed by U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney on
September 4, 2014.  The court appointed Parker Waichman LLP;
Paradis Law Group, PLLC; and Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP as
class counsel in the litigation.  The final approval hearing will
be held on December 8, 2014, the order states.

"We are pleased by the court's decision," said Gary Falkowitz,
Managing Attorney at Parker Waichman LLP.  "When businesses make
claims about their products, they should be held responsible when
those claims prove to be untrue."  According to Parker Waichman
LLP, the IdeaPad U Series did not live up to marketing claims.

According to court documents, the lawsuit alleges that the Lenovo
IdeaPad U310 and U410 "U Series" computers have defective Wi-Fi
capabilities, despite being marketed as "ideal for any and all
mobile needs."  Allegedly, the devices had a defect that severely
impeded the plaintiffs' ability to connect to Wi-Fi networks or
obtain Wi-Fi reception speeds sufficient to engage in their
intended mobile computing purposes.  The suit alleged that Lenovo
sold the faulty computers using deceptive marketing practices.

An agreement to resolve these allegations was reached in June
2014, court documents indicate.  Now, the court has granted the
plaintiffs' motion, stating that "the terms of the settlement are
likely to be fair, adequate, and reasonable."  The Order states
that "Having reviewed the negotiation process and substantive
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Court finds no obvious
deficiencies or grounds to doubt its fairness."

The Settlement Agreement provides several benefit options, the
Order states.  To resolve allegations, plaintiffs can choose one
of the following options:

Repair the wireless capability (only available to those who have
not returned their computers to Lenovo)

Receive a $100 cash refund from Lenovo

Receive a $250 credit certificate to be used toward any product
listed for sale on Lenovo's website

Class members must submit a Claim Form and Settlement Declaration
along with "a sales receipt, credit card or other account
statement, shipping manifest, purchase order or other similar
documentation evidencing purchase of" the affected computer to
receive any of these benefits.

If you or someone you know has purchased a Lenovo IdeaPad notebook
computer, you may have valuable legal rights.  To discuss your
case with one of our lawyers, please view our Lenovo IdeaPad
Ultrabook Class Action Lawsuits page or call 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-
800-529-4636).


LOWE'S HOME: Judge Refuses to Sign Off $3.4MM OT Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for Law.com, reports that a Florida federal
judge has refused to sign off on a proposed $3.4 million
collective settlement because the terms provide too little
compensation for hundreds of human resources managers who alleged
Lowe's Home Centers Inc. unlawfully denied them overtime.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington, of the Middle
District of Florida, also looked askance at the suggestion that
plaintiff's attorneys will ask for 43 percent of the pot.

At issue is a 2012 suit brought by lead plaintiff Lizeth Lytle
alleging that the home improvement company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay its human resources managers'
overtime compensation.  The deal presented to the judge called for
a settlement fund of $3.4 million, from which 891 plaintiffs would
split $1.9 million. In the proposed settlement agreement -- which
was the second submitted to the judge -- the plaintiffs estimated
each manager would have earned about $10,000 in extra pay over two
years if Lowe's had honored overtime hours.  The parties agreed
that 20 percent of that amount, or a total of about $2,100, would
be a "fair and justified" award for each plaintiff.

That did not sit well with Judge Hernandez Covington.  "The Court
finds that the terms are not fair and reasonable," she wrote in
her Sept. 8 order.

Although noting that no application for attorneys' fees had yet
formally reached the court, she let it be known she would not look
kindly on an award of about $1.5 million, plus litigation costs,
as plaintiffs' counsel had suggested in their motion for
settlement approval that they would request.

"(T)he Court finds it troubling that Class counsel is seeking
roughly 43% of the settlement amount, when the proposed Settlement
Agreement only provides for each opt-in plaintiff to receive 20
percent of his or her damages," Judge Hernandez Covington wrote.

She denied, without prejudice, the settlement and gave the parties
until Sept. 19 to submit a revised agreement, along with a request
for attorneys' fees.

"The parties should thoughtfully consider the damages sustained by
each opt-in plaintiff, and derive a sufficient Settlement
Agreement that would adequately compensate each opt-in plaintiff,"
the judge wrote.

An initial settlement agreement aimed to reopen the notice period,
and estimated the potential number of plaintiffs at 2,800, and a
settlement fund of about $9 million.  Judge Hernandez Covington
denied that motion.


MARRONE BIO: Illegally Inflates Stock Price, "Chen" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ssuchia Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone,
Donald J. Glidewell and James B. Boyd, Case No. 2:14-cv-02105
(E.D. Cal., September 11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price.

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. provides bio-based pest management
and plant health products for the agriculture, turf and ornamental
and water treatment markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: info@glancylaw.com

        - and -

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (561) 394-3382


MARRONE BIO: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Sept. 11 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California against
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the
period from March 7, 2014 through September 2, 2014.

Marrone Bio provides pest management and plant health products.
The Company purportedly assists customers around the globe with
controlling pests, improving plant health, and increasing crop
yields while reducing the environmental pesticide load, decreasing
chemical residues on food, and fighting the development of pest
resistance.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants disseminated false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had improperly
recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; (b) Marrone Bio's internal accounting controls were
deficient and permitted the premature recognition of revenue,
leading to materially misstated financial results; and (c) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  As a
result of defendants' false statements, Marrone Bio's stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with a
high of $15.00 per share on March 7, 2014.

On September 3, 2014, the Company announced that its Audit
Committee had "commenced an internal investigation after
management learned of documents calling into question the
recognition of revenue in the fourth quarter of 2013 for an
$870,000 transaction."  Marrone Bio also disclosed that the Audit
Committee concluded that the Company's previously reported
financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
the related report of the independent auditors on those 2013
financial statements dated March 25, 2014, and the unaudited
interim financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2014
and June 30, 2014, should no longer be relied upon.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.50 or over 44%, from
$5.65 on September 2, 2014, to close at $3.15 on September 3,
2014, on extremely high volume of 2.5 million shares traded, or 25
times the average daily trading volume during the Class Period.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Marrone Bio stock between March 7, 2014 and
September 2, 2014, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Marrone Bio common stock during the Class Period
of March 7, 2014 through September 2, 2014, and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court no later than November 4, 2014.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.


MBR MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Naimatullah Nyazee, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. MBR Management Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-
01561 (E.D. Mo., September 11, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MBR Management Corporation operates approximately 54 Domino's
franchise stores in Missouri and Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com


MCCAIN FOODS: Recalls Onion Rings Due to Glass
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 12, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           McCain Foods (Canada)
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9251

McCain Foods (Canada) is voluntarily recalling McCain brand Onion
Rings from the marketplace due to possible glass contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described.

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

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

The recall was triggered by the company. McCain Foods (Canada) is
voluntarily recalling the potentially affected product from the
marketplace.

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

Affected products: 397 g. McCain Onion Rings with lot code
beginning with V40728 and a best before date of Oct. 28, 2015


MERCEDES-BENZ US: Sued Over Discrimination Against Black Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mercedes-Benz discriminates
against black employees on a "systemwide" basis, a class action
claims in Alabama Federal Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq.
          Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street, North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
          Telephone: (205) 314-0542
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: gwiggins@wigginschilds.com
                  kjent@wigginschilds.com

The case is Charlie Frankie Butler, individually and on behalf of
the class he seeks to represent v. Mercedes Benz US International
Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01746-SLB, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama.


MICROSOFT INC: Court Dismissed Suit Over X-Box Live Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft need not face a class action alleging X-Box Live privacy
violations, a federal judge ruled, finding that plaintiffs failed
to show specific injuries, reports June Williams at Courthouse
News Service.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman tossed the suit on September
11, 2014, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing and largely based
their allegations on "conjecture" about Microsoft's privacy
policies.

"Plaintiffs do not allege a single fact to support their
allegation that Microsoft allegedly retained and disclosed
personally identifiable information," the eight-page decision
states.  "Absent is any allegation as to who Microsoft disclosed
this information to, when the disclosures occurred, and how they
occurred, let alone that these acts particularly injured the named
plaintiffs."

Lead plaintiff Manuel Mendoza and five other named plaintiffs
brought the suit on behalf of all former X-Box live subscribers in
2013.  They claimed Microsoft violated the Video Privacy
Protection Act, California Customer Records Act, California Unfair
Competition Act and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by
disclosing their personal information to data mining companies.

Microsoft removed the case from the Western District of Texas to
the Western District of Washington before it moved to dismiss.

Pechman's ruling dismisses the case for failing to satisfy Article
III's Injury-in-fact requirements.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Omar W. Rosales, Esq.
          THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC
          402 South F St.
          Harlingen, TX 78550
          Toll-Free: (866) 402-8082
          Telephone: (956) 423-1417
          Facsimile: (956) 444-0217
          E-mail: omar@owrosales.com

The case is Manuel Mendoza, et al. v. Microsoft, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-00316-MJP, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.


MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over FCRA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Reilly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monitronics International, Inc., Vision Security, LLC,
Security Networks, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-02163 (S.D. Cal.,
September 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by
unlawfully obtaining Consumer Reports on potential customers of
the Defendants' services without the knowledge or consent of those
potential customers.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing alarm
monitoring services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen R. Frostrom, Esq.
      THORSNES BARTOLOTTA AND MCGUIRE
      2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 236-9363
      Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
      E-mail: frostrom@tbmlawyers.com


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Awaits Settlement Approval in "Toth" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Bancshares, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case
Toth v. Northwest Savings Bank.

On May 7, 2012, Ashley Toth ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania against Northwest Savings Bank ("Northwest").
Plaintiff's complaint alleged state law claims related to
Northwest's order of posting ATM and debit card transactions and
the assessment of overdraft fees on deposit customer accounts.
Northwest filed preliminary objections to the putative class
action complaint on June 29, 2012.  On September 6, 2012,
Plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint
containing substantially the same allegations as the initial
putative class action complaint.  On November 5, 2012, Northwest
filed preliminary objections to the amended putative class action
complaint.  Plaintiff filed her opposition to Northwest's
preliminary objections on December 6, 2012, and Northwest filed
its reply in support of the preliminary objections on January 3,
2013.  On June 25, 2013, the court entered an order, granting in
part and overruling in part, Northwest's preliminary objections.

On November 18, 2013, the parties participated in a mediation and
reached an agreement in principle, subject to the preparation and
execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
release, to fully, finally and completely settle, resolve,
discharge and release all claims that have been or could have been
asserted in the action on a class-wide basis.  The proposed
settlement contemplates that, in return for a full and complete
release of claims by Plaintiff and the settlement class members,
Northwest will create a settlement fund for distribution to the
settlement class members after certain court-approved reductions,
including for attorney's fees and expenses.  The proposed
settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval.


OHIO EDUCATION: Settles Teachers' Class Action Over Union Dues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Daily News, citing the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation, reports that with free legal assistance from the
National Right to Work Foundation, 14 public school teachers
across the state have won a federal class-action settlement
against the Ohio Education Association (OEA) and 11 of its
regional and local affiliates for violating their rights.

The settlement is in a class-action lawsuit the group filed in
2011 after the OEA union unlawfully overcharged the teachers --
who have refrained from full-dues-paying union membership -- for
union "fees" taken from their paychecks.  The union hierarchy
charged the teachers for costs supporting the union's political
activism and electioneering.  Per Foundation-won U.S. Supreme
Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, nonmember
teachers cannot be forced to pay dues or fees for union boss
politics and other non-bargaining activities under the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the OEA union's regional affiliates were collecting
compulsory fees from non-members without providing the kind of
independently-audited financial statements required by law.  In
the Foundation-won Supreme Court ruling in Chicago Teachers Union
v. Hudson, the High Court ruled that public employees must be
notified how their forced union dues are spent to make it less
difficult to prevent their dues from going towards union political
and member-only expenditures.

The settlement awards more than 2,000 teachers in Ohio nominal
damages and/or rebates for union dues illegally-seized from their
paychecks during the 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 school years.

"OEA union officials have a long history of abusing teachers'
rights in the workplace to fund their political coffers," said
Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work Foundation.  "We
applaud these teachers' commitment to defending their and other
Ohio teachers' rights in this case."

"Despite this victory, it's important to remember that the OEA
union machine forced nonmembers to pay a large part of the money
used to defeat public-sector reforms in the Buckeye State in
2011 -- reforms that would have allowed teachers to opt out of
forced dues payments all together," added Mr. Mix.  "This case
underscores the need for Ohio to pass a Right to Work law
protecting all of Ohio's workers."

Twenty-four states have Right to Work protections for workers.
Public polling shows that nearly 80 percent of Americans and union
members support the Right to Work principle of voluntary unionism.


OMEGA FOOD: Recalls Wolski Horseradish Over Undeclared Sulphites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 9, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Omega Food Importers Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9202

Affected products: Wolski Prepared Horseradish with all codes
where sulphites are not declared on the label


OUTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Mich. Appeals Ct. Upholds Ruling in C&L Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned C & L WARD BROS. COMPANY, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. OUTSOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC., YOURSOURCE MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC., TODD LANCASTER, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 315794, Plaintiff C & L Ward filed a
complaint in the circuit court for review of an arbitration
decision and subsequently filed a motion to reinstate the
arbitration proceeding and to vacate the arbitrator's summary
dismissal of plaintiff's claim for breach of contract. The
arbitrator had concluded that the breach of contract claim was not
arbitrable under the parties' contract and therefore he lacked
jurisdiction to address the claim on the merits. Plaintiff appeals
as of right the circuit court's order denying its motion
challenging the arbitrator's ruling and dismissing plaintiff's
complaint.

The Court of Appeals of Michigan on September 2, 2014, ultimately
affirmed on the basis of its agreement with the arbitrator, the
circuit court, and a federal district court involved in the
litigation, that plaintiff's contract claim was simply not
arbitrable under the plain language of the parties' contract.

A copy of the Michigan Appeals Court's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/oQUgcnfrom Leagle.com.


PACIFIC COAST: Defending Against "Welch" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that on July 1, 2014, Thomas
Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust,
PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain
executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others.

The Complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The Complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

The Trust intends to defend the Welch lawsuit vigorously. The
Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any
liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
litigation contemplated by the Complaint. Nevertheless, the Trust
may incur expenses in connection with the litigation.


PAYPAL INC: Objection to "Zepeda" Suit Ruling Overruled
-------------------------------------------------------
In MOISES ZEPEDA, MICHAEL SPEAR, RONYA OSMAN, BRIAN PATTEE, CASEY
CHING, DENAE ZAMORA, MICHAEL LAVANGA, and GARY MILLER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. PAYPAL, INC., E-BAY INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO: C 10-2500 SBA, NO. C 10-1668 SBA, (N.D.
Cal.), the Court previously referred putative interveners' motion
to intervene and amend complaint to Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Spero for determination as a non-dispositive matter, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A).  On April 23, 2014, the Magistrate
denied the motion. The parties are now before the Court on
Putative Interveners' Objection to Order of Magistrate Judge.

District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, in an order dated
September 2, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/YMAXfN from Leagle.com, overruled the Objection.

Moises Zepeda, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vincent Storti --
ms@stortilaw.com -- Alfredo Torrijos -- atorrijos@aogllp.com --
Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch --
hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group, Jeffrey A Leon --
jeff@complexlitgroup.com -- Complex Litigation Group LLC, Jonathan
Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo -
- mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael
Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner --
rlk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP.

Michael Spear, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vincent Storti,
Alfredo Torrijos, Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen
Kabateck, Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch, Lexington Law
Group, Jonathan Shub, Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo, Lexington
Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael Lehrman, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner, Kabateck
Kellner LLP.

Ronya Osman, Plaintiff, represented by Marina Trubitsky --
marina.trubitsky@lawcontact.com -- Law Office of Marina Trubitsky,
Michael Vincent Storti, Alfredo Torrijos -- atorrijos@aogllp.com -
- Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch --
hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group, Jonathan Shub --
jshub@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo --
mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael
Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner --
rlk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP.

Brian Pattee, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vincent Storti --
ms@stortilaw.com -- Alfredo Torrijos -- atorrijos@aogllp.com --
Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen Kabateck --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch --
hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group, Jonathan Shub --
jshub@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo --
mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com -- Lexington Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael
Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner --
rlk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Kellner LLP.

Casey Ching, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vincent Storti,
Alfredo Torrijos, Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen
Kabateck, Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch, Lexington Law
Group, Jonathan Shub, Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo, Lexington
Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael Lehrman, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner, Kabateck
Kellner LLP.

Denae Zamora, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vincent Storti,
Alfredo Torrijos, Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen
Kabateck, Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch, Lexington Law
Group, Jonathan Shub, Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo, Lexington
Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael Lehrman, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner, Kabateck
Kellner LLP.

Michael Lavanga, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vincent Storti,
Alfredo Torrijos, Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen
Kabateck, Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch, Lexington Law
Group, Jonathan Shub, Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo, Lexington
Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael Lehrman, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner, Kabateck
Kellner LLP.

Gary Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Vincent Storti,
Alfredo Torrijos, Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, Brian Stephen
Kabateck, Kabateck Kellner LLP, Howard Judd Hirsch, Lexington Law
Group, Jonathan Shub, Seeger Weiss LLP, Mark N. Todzo, Lexington
Law Group, LLP, Seth Michael Lehrman, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. & Richard Kellner, Kabateck
Kellner LLP.

Paypal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lisa Marie Simonetti --
lsimonetti@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Benjamin
Taylor Potter -- bpotter@stroock.com -- Stroock, David Wesley Moon
-- dmoon@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, George
Stephen Azadian, The Mathews Law Group, Julia B. Strickland --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Wesley
Michael Griffith -- wgriffith@stroock.com -- Stroock and Stroock
and Lavan.


PFIZER INC: Court Dismisses "Plumlee" Case With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
LAURA A. PLUMLEE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PFIZER, INC., a
New York Corporation, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-00414-LHK, (N.D.
Cal.) is a putative class action against Pfizer, Inc., alleging
that Defendant mislabeled its product Zoloft in violation of
California law.  Defendant moves to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, which Plaintiff opposed.

Accordingly, District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice.  A
copy of Judge Koh's August 29, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/hLPPa3from Leagle.com.

Laura A Plumlee, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Luke Coffin
-- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Bauldin Coffin, LLP, Alison
Smith Gaffney -- agaffney@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, Benjamin Blystad Gould -- bgould@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Bijan Esfandiari -- BEsfandiari@BaumHedlundLaw.com -
- Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman, P.C., Cynthia Lynn Garber --
CGarber@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman,
P.C., David M Hundley -- dhundley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley,
Baudin, Coffin, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Juli E. Farris
-- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Khesraw
Karmand -- kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP,
Michael L. Baum -- MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- Baum Hedlund
Aristei and Goldman, P.C., Michael Dean Woerner --
mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Nicholas R
Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin, Coffin,
LLP, Patrick Wayne Pendley -- ppendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley
Baudin & Coffin LLP, Robert Brent Wisner --
rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman, PC,
S. Samuel Griffin, Law Office of S. Samuel Griffin & Stanley P.
Baudin -- sbaudin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Baudin & Coffin, LLP.

Pfizer, Inc, Defendant, represented by Mark S. Cheffo --
markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, Allen Ruby -- allen.ruby@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom, LLP, Arthur Miles Roberts --
arthurroberts@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP, John S Didday -- johndidday@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Karin A. Kramer --
karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
& Raoul Dion Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.


PFIZER INC: Consumer Group Loses Freedom of Information Act Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that a consumer
rights advocacy group has lost a Freedom of Information Act fight
to access the compliance records Pfizer Inc. and Purdue Pharma LP
filed with the government as part of their settlement of health
care fraud cases.

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia
agreed with the pharmaceutical companies and HHS that the records
were exempt under FOIA's exemption for trade secrets and
confidential commercial, financial information.

In 2009, Public Citizen requested the annual reports both
drugmakers filed as part of their corporate integrity agreements.
The accords were reached to resolve claims against the companies
for the illegal, off-label promotion of drug prescriptions that
were reimbursed by federal health care programs.

Public Citizen wanted to access summaries that described business
operations at both drug companies, including training exercises
and the conduct of people involved in promotional activities.

Public Citizen also wanted to access letters related to sales and
marketing activities, including speaker programs and mandated
reviews Pfizer was mandated to conduct of commercially available
records to "determine the content of any discussion between Pfizer
sales representatives and health care providers providing
potential off-label uses."

The information could be used by competitors to learn how Purdue
and Pfizer promote their products through their marketing
programs, the judge said.

The judge, however, also said that the information could be used
by competitors to learn how Purdue and Pfizer have developed their
operations to comply with federal law without the competitors
having to make a similar investment of capital to learn where the
line between lawfulness and unlawfulness is drawn.

The drugmakers' "declarants make a strong case as to why the
information contained in these documents could be used to cause
substantial commercial harm," Judge Howell said.

The documents are still exempt even if, as Public Citizen argued,
the records "reflect facts that may lead to the conclusion that an
unlawful act occurred," the judge said.

The screening programs are required by their corporate integrity
agreements, Judge Howell said, and their disclosure would benefit
competitors which would not have to make the same kind of
investment of resources as Pfizer and Purdue have had to.


PHYSIOTHERAPY ASSOCIATES: Moved "Berkowitz" Suit to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Law Firm of Stuart R. Berkowitz v.
Physiotherapy Associates, Inc., et al. Case No. 14SL-CC02608, was
removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-01565 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536-7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian R. Shank, Esq.
          EVANS AND DIXON
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 2500
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-7755
          Facsimile: (314) 621-3136
          E-mail: bshank@evans-dixon.com


PINNACLE SECURITY: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Espina and Omar Perez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pinnacle Security, LLC, and
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-02166-GPC-
NLS (S.D. Cal., September 11, 2014) seeks relief pursuant to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen R. Frostrom, Esq.
          THORSNES BARTOLOTTA AND MCGUIRE
          2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: frostrom@tbmlawyers.com


POHANKA AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Jones" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In EUNICE JONES, et al. v. POHANKA AUTO NORTH, INC., CIVIL ACTION
NO. DKC 13-3238, (D. Md.), pending and ready for resolution in
this putative class action is the motion to dismiss filed by the
remaining eleven Defendants: Pohanka Auto North, Inc.; Pohanka
Chevrolet, Inc.; Pohanka Hyundai, Inc.; Pohanka Imports, Inc.;
Pohanka MB, Inc.; Pohanka NMH, Inc.; Pohanka of Clarksville, Inc.;
Pohanka of Salisbury, Inc.; Pohanka Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc.;
Pohanka SHO, Inc.; and Pohanka TM, Inc.

District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow, in a memorandum opinion dated
September 2, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/0fYjlnfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion to
dismiss.

Eunice Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Harris Steinbach, O
Toole Rothwell, Martin Eugene Wolf -- mwolf@gordon-wolf.com --
Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chts., Richard S Gordon -- rgordon@gordon-
wolf.com -- Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. & Benjamin Howard Carney
-- bcarney@gordon-wolf.com -- Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd.

Barbara Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Harris Steinbach, O
Toole Rothwell, Martin Eugene Wolf, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chts.,
Richard S Gordon, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. & Benjamin Howard
Carney, Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd.

Pohanka Auto North, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng
-- ggaeng@rosenbergmartin.com -- Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP &
James Edward Crossan -- jcrossan@rosenbergmartin.com -- Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka Chevrolet, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan, Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka Hyundai, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan, Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka Imports, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan, Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka MB, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan, Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka NMH, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan, Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka of Clarksville, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J
Gaeng, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka of Salisbury, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J
Gaeng, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Gerard J Gaeng, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward
Crossan, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka SHO, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan, Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

Pohanka TM, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gerard J Gaeng,
Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & James Edward Crossan, Rosenberg
Martin Greenberg LLP.

SunTrust Bank, Defendant, represented by Brian L Moffet --
bmoffet@gfrlaw.com -- Gordon Feinblatt LLC & John Jun Young Lee --
jlee@gfrlaw.com -- Gordon Feinblatt LLC.


POST HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Hearing Scheduled for December 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that in late 2008 and early
2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were filed in various federal
courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and approximately 20 other
defendants (producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed
egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations
of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the
production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking
unspecified damages.  Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide
classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that
defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating
in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg-
industry associations.

In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Between late 2010 and early 2012, a number of
companies, each of which would be part of the purported class in
the antitrust action, brought separate actions against defendants.
These "tag-along" cases, brought primarily by various grocery
chains and food companies, assert essentially the same allegations
as in the main action. All but one of the tag-along cases were
either filed in or transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania where they are being treated as related to the main
action.

Fact discovery concluded on April 30, 2014.  The class-
certification phase of the case is currently in process. Hearings
on class certification are scheduled for December 2014 for direct
purchaser plaintiffs and February 2015 for indirect purchaser
plaintiffs.

Post is a consumer packaged goods holding company operating in the
center-of-the-store, refrigerated, active nutrition and private
label food categories.


PREMIER INGREDIENTS: Recalls Konrads.ca Spice Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Premier Ingredients
Distribution:             Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9248

Premier Ingredients is recalling Premier brand and Konrads.ca
brand spice products from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination.  Consumers should not consume the
recalled products described.

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

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

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

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

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


PROTECTIVE LIFE: Faces Class Actions Over Dai-ichi Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that since the entry
into the Merger Agreement on June 3, 2014, with The Dai-ichi Life
Insurance Company, Limited, a kabushiki kaisha organized under the
laws of Japan ("Dai-ichi") and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Dai-ichi which
provides for the merger of DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Dai-ichi, four lawsuits
have been filed against the Company, our directors, Dai-ichi and
DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on behalf of alleged Company
shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit
styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 01-CV-2014-902474.00, was filed in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On July 30, 2014, the
plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended complaint. Three putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, including Martin, et al. v. Protective Life
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB, filed June 19,
2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014 and Hilburn, et al.
v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9937-CB,
filed July 23, 2014.

The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Martin,
Leyendecker and Hilburn actions under the caption In re Protective
Life Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No.
9794-CB, designated the Hilburn complaint as the operative
consolidated complaint and appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J.
Leyendecker, Jr., and Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead
plaintiffs.

The Company said, "These lawsuits allege that our Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties to our shareowners, that
the Merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process,
and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude
competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy statement filed
with the SEC on July 10, 2014 fails to disclose purportedly
material information. The complaints also allege that the Company,
Dai-ichi and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek
injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the Merger,
and attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other
relief. The consolidated Delaware action also seeks an award of
unspecified damages. The Company and our Board of Directors
believe these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend these actions. The Company cannot predict the outcome of or
estimate the possible loss or range of loss from these matters."

Protective Life is a holding company headquartered in Birmingham,
Alabama, with subsidiaries that provide financial services through
the production, distribution, and administration of insurance and
investment products.


REACH MEDIA: Faces "Dumas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dumas, Tunda Wannamaker, Tim White, and Erica Williams
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Reach Media, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-03277 (N.D. Tex., September
11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Reach Media, Inc. is a multi-media company that primarily targets
African-American and urban consumers in the radio broadcasting
market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nellie G. Hooper, Esq.
      Barbara T. Hale, Esq.
      BLANSCET HOOPER & HALE LLP
      14285 Midway Road, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001
      Telephone: (214) 764-7977
      Facsimile: (214) 764-7981
      E-mail: nhooper@metrocrestlaw.com
              bhale@metrocrestlaw.com


REDFIELD CORPORATION: Recalls Infrared Coagulation System
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 10, 2014
Posting date:             September 11, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-41339

Recalled Products: Infrared Coagulation System (IRC 2100)

Redfield corporation is notifying customers that the IRC 2100 they
purchased was not licensed by Health Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Redfield Corporation
                    336 West Passaic Street
                    Rochelle Park
                    07662
                    New Jersey
                    United States


REPUBLIC BANCORP: Agreed Order Entered Dismissing "Webb" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Republic Bancorp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a lawsuit was filed on
August 1, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky styled Brenda Webb vs. Republic Bank & Trust
Company d/b/a Republic Bank, Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00423-TBR.
The Complaint was brought as a putative class action and sought
monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief allegedly
arising from the manner in which RB&T assessed overdraft fees.  To
update the disclosure set forth in Republic's Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2013: during March 2014, the parties
signed a Settlement Agreement that provided for the dismissal of
the lawsuit.

In April 2014, the Court entered an agreed order dismissing the
case.  Costs to settle the litigation were accrued by the Company
during the first quarter of 2014 and paid during the second
quarter of 2014.  Such costs did not have a material effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that James Glitz and
Rodger A. Thornberry, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated stockholders, filed on December 5, 2012, a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma against SandRidge and certain current
and former executive officers of SandRidge.

On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially
similar putative class action complaint in the same court and
against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.

On July 23, 2013 the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, in which the Trust was named as an additional
defendant.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts a variety
of federal securities claims against the Trust and SandRidge and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, among
other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers
of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011
to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust with respect to certain of the allegations, are responsible
for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material
information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and
gas reserves, SandRidge's capital expenditures, and certain
transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with
SandRidge's former CEO Tom Ward. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public
offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was corrected by way of a
Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 30, 2013.

The Trust and SandRidge each filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims
asserted against the Trust in the Corrected Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The
Trust will estimate and provide for potential losses that may
arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are
probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment
will be required in making any such estimates and any final
liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different
than any estimates.

The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established
any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.  The Trust may
withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover
future costs associated with the litigation if determined
necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may
have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may
make in connection with the Securities Litigation.


SCI FUNERAL: "Menor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Osmany Menor, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Sci
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/as Memorial Plan Cemeteries
& Funeral Homes, a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-
23361 (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2014), seeks to recover over
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sci Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. owns and operates Memorial
Plan Cemeteries & Funeral Homes in Miami Dade, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEARS CANADA: Hometown Store Dealers Suit Gets Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a lawsuit against Sears Canada
Inc. and its U.S. counterpart by its Hometown Store dealers has
been granted class-action status by an Ontario court.

The lawsuit by more than 250 current and former operators of Sears
Hometown Stores allege Sears Canada and Sears Roebuck and Co. made
it "virtually impossible" for them to operate their Hometown
Stores profitably.  The dealers allege that Sears lowered
commissions, reduced advertising for local stores and bypassed the
franchises by selling directly to customers who are located within
their markets.  They also claim that Sears set their compensation
and work conditions, without abiding by labor laws or franchise
protection laws.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Sears Canada said on Sept. 11 it has reviewed the claims and
believes they are without merit.  The retailer has argued the
Hometown Store operators are not franchisees and denied dealer
commissions have been reduced.  Sears has also denied that any
changes to the dealer compensation structure and advertising
subsidies hurt dealers.


STATE STREET: 2 ERISA Class Actions Pending in Boston Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that two putative class
actions are currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging
various violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied
with the Company that executed indirect foreign exchange
transactions with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints
allege that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and
unreasonable rates for indirect foreign exchange transactions with
State Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief.

"We have not established an accrual with respect to any of the
pending legal proceedings related to our indirect foreign exchange
services. We cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the
pending proceedings, or whether other proceedings might be
commenced against us by clients or government authorities. We
expect that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all or
a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from providing
indirect foreign exchange services," the Company said.


STATE STREET: 3 Shareholder Complaints Pending in Boston Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that three shareholder-
related complaints are currently pending in federal court in
Boston. One complaint purports to be a class action on behalf of
State Street shareholders. The two other complaints purport to be
class actions on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the
State Street Salary Savings Program who invested in the program's
State Street common stock investment option.

The Company said, "The complaints allege various violations of the
federal securities laws, common law and ERISA in connection with
our public disclosures concerning our investment securities
portfolio, our asset-backed commercial paper conduit program, and
our foreign exchange trading business."

"In July 2014, we filed motions to approve a $60 million class
settlement in the shareholder litigation and a $10 million class
settlement in the two Salary Savings Program actions. A fourth
complaint, a purported shareholder derivative action on behalf of
State Street, was dismissed in September 2013. We have entered
into an agreement to settle that matter for nominal consideration.
As of June 30, 2014, we had an accrual which, together with
anticipated insurance recovery, will be sufficient to fund each of
these proposed settlements."


SUPER ASIA: Recalls Mitchell's Pickles Due to Undeclared Mustard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 15, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Super Asia Foods & Spices Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Super Asia Food & Spices Ltd. is recalling Mitchell's brand
pickles from the marketplace because they contain mustard which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to mustard
should not consume the recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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


SUSSER HOLDINGS: Amended Consolidated Class Action Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Susser Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2014, that two purported class
action lawsuits were filed on May 6, 2014, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.: John
Bruce Copeland, III, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Susser Holdings Corporation, et. al.,
Defendants, C.A. No. 9613-VCG; and Natalie Gordon, On Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Susser
Holdings Corporation, et. al., Defendants, C.A. No. 9620-VCG. Both
complaints name as defendants the Company, the members of the
Company's Board of Directors, and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
and related entities.

"The complaints assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the members of our Board of Directors and against the Company and
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. and related entities for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints allege that the
proposed merger consideration is inadequate and unfair, that the
process leading up to the proposed acquisition is unfair, and that
the merger agreement contains preclusive deal protection devices.
The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition or rescind
the acquisition to the extent it is consummated, rescissory
damages, an accounting, a constructive trust, attorneys' fees,
expert fees and costs, and other equitable relief. On June 17,
2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint. The Company believes that the allegations of the
complaints are without merit," the Company said.


TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Entered Into Confidential Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that purported class action
litigation was filed on September 23, 2009, against American
Income Life Insurance Company in the Superior Court of San
Bernardino County, California (Hoover v. American Income Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CIVRS 910758). The plaintiffs, former
insurance sales agents of American Income who sued on behalf of
all current and former American Income sales agents in California
for the four year period prior to the filing of the litigation,
asserted that American Income's agents are employees, not
independent contractors as they are classified by American Income.
They alleged failure to indemnify and reimburse for business
expenses as well as failure to pay all wages due upon termination
in violation of the California Labor Code; failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of the California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order No. 4-2001, originally and as amended; and unfair
business practices in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. They sought, in a jury
trial, reimbursement for business expenses and indemnification for
losses, payment of minimum wages for their training periods,
payment of moneys due immediately upon termination under the
California Labor Code, disgorgement of profits resulting from
unfair and unlawful business practices, and injunctive relief
granting employee status to all of American Income's California
agents.

On October 29, 2009, American Income filed a motion seeking to
remove this litigation from the Superior Court in San Bernadino
County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Eastern Division. The U.S. District Court remanded the
case without prejudice to the Superior Court and denied American
Income's motion to dismiss on December 15, 2009. On January 19,
2010, American Income filed a motion to dismiss which was denied
by the Superior Court after a hearing held on March 16, 2010. On
September 20, 2010, American Income again filed a motion to remove
the case to federal court based upon jurisdictional grounds that
had not been available previously.

American Income's motion was not successful, however, and the case
was remanded back to Superior Court. On January 12, 2011, the
Superior Court denied American Income's motion to exercise the
arbitration clauses of those agent contracts that contain them.
American Income appealed that denial to the Court of Appeal. On
May 16, 2012, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's
denial with respect to named plaintiff Hoover. American Income
petitioned the California Supreme Court for a review of this
decision and the Supreme Court denied the petition on September
12, 2012. After discovery and mediation of the matter, the parties
entered into a confidential settlement agreement of the litigation
on May 27, 2014.


TREE.COM INC: Settlement Fund in "Boschma" Suit Fully Funded
------------------------------------------------------------
Tree.com, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case Boschma
v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV7-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D.
Cal.).

On May 25, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against HLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an option
"ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to disclose in a
clear and conspicuous manner, among other things, that the
interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization could
occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty. Based upon these
factual allegations, the plaintiffs asserted violations of the
federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the Unfair Competition
Law, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of
all individuals who, between June 1, 2003 and May 31, 2007,
obtained option ARM loans through HLC on their primary residences
located in California, and seek rescission, damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have not yet filed a
motion for class certification, but have filed a total of eight
complaints in connection with this lawsuit.

Each of the first seven complaints has been dismissed by the
federal and state courts. The plaintiffs filed the eighth
complaint (a "Second Amended Complaint") in Orange County
(California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the
fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims.

As with each of the seven previous versions of plaintiffs'
complaint, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed in April
2010. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10,
2011, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and
directed the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was
remanded to superior court. During 2013, the parties agreed to a
$450,000 settlement, which was approved in 2013. A nominal payment
into the settlement fund was made in late 2013.

The Company expects administration of the settlement to be
completed by the fourth quarter of 2014.  A provision for the
remaining $435,000 is included in current liabilities of
discontinued operations as of June 30, 2014.  Subsequent to June
30, 2014, the settlement fund was fully funded. The impact of the
settlement was not material.

Tree.com, Inc. is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which owns
several brands and businesses that provide information, tools,
advice, products and services for critical transactions in
consumers' lives.


TREE.COM INC: Settlement Reached in "Dijkstra" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Tree.com, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, provided updates on the case Lijkel
Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No.
5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV).

On November 7, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action
in Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges
that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West
Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the
practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision
of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to
close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory
judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all
defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc.
have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in
October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
includes consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia.

On February 26, 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims
applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"),
HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage.

As of June 30, 2014, HLC and the plaintiff have reached a
tentative settlement agreement with respect to the remaining
Individual Claims.

A reserve of $2.8 million has been established for this matter in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2014,
of which some or all may be covered by insurance. Subsequent to
June 30, 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million. HLC believes it has strong grounds for
appeal.

Tree.com, Inc. is the parent of LendingTree, LLC, which owns
several brands and businesses that provide information, tools,
advice, products and services for critical transactions in
consumers' lives.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Entered MOU to Settle Shareholders' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit was filed on January 24, 2014, against TriCo,
North Valley Bancorp and certain other defendants in connection
with TriCo entering into the merger agreement with North Valley
Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed in the Shasta County,
California Superior Court, alleges that the members of the North
Valley Bancorp board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by approving the proposed
merger for inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in
order receive benefits not equally shared by other North Valley
Bancorp shareholders; entering into the merger agreement
containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take
steps to maximize the value to be paid to the North Valley Bancorp
shareholders. The lawsuit alleges claims against TriCo for aiding
and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger,
rescission, attorneys' of the merger agreement, fees and costs,
and other and further relief.

On July 31, 2014 the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this
lawsuit. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full
settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley
Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed by each of the companies.  The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good
faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to North Valley Bancorp's shareholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.


UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Cummings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas, Inc., d/b/a
United Cerebral Palsy of Arkansas, Case No. 4:14-cv-00547 (E.D.
Ark., September 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation for the hours in excess of 40
hours in a single work week.

United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arkansas, Inc., conducts business
within the State of Arkansas, managing the care provided to
disabled persons through direct care workers throughout the state
of Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Delena C. Hurst, Esq.
      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 110
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: delena@sanfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Heard Arguments in "Human Guinea Pig" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A 9th Circuit panel heard arguments on September 11, 2014, about
the government's obligation to provide medical care and notice to
veterans who were subject to Cold War-era "human guinea pig" drug
experiments, reports Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service.

The oral arguments stem from a 2009 class action by veterans who
say they were guinea pigs for drug experiments.

The case has been whittled down for five years, with claims
against the CIA, Defense Department, and Attorney General Eric
Holder tossed out.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in November 2013 granted
summary judgment to the veterans against the Army on one claim.

"The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects
of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these
individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments,"
Wilken wrote then.

"Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly
acquired information that may affect the well-being of test
subjects after they completed their participation in research."

Both Vietnam Veterans of America and the government defendants
appealed to the 9th Circuit, and attorneys presented their
arguments before a three-judge panel on September 11, 2014.

Much of the dispute centered on the Army's duty to provide medical
care for veterans that the Veterans Administration does not
provide.

Both parties focused on Army Regulation 70-25 (AR 70-25), which
entitles test subjects to medical treatment for illnesses
resulting from experiments.

Representing the veterans, attorney Ben Patterson said the legal
error in the lower court decision was "refusing to enjoin the Army
to act."

"The regulation has to apply to someone, and it applies to this
class of former test subjects, who were part of deliberate
exposure experiments, exposed to substances like Sarin, VX and
mustard gas," Patterson said, referring to AR 70-25.

Despite the Army's admission that it is not providing medical care
to those test subjects as a group, the lower court refused to
enjoin them.

Ninth Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace expressed skepticism about
what the court could do to force the Army to provide care to those
veterans.

"I'm having a great deal of difficulty determining why it is that
you believe we can find this discrete area where we could mandamus
the Army to do something," Wallace said.

Patterson replied that veterans are not asking to restructure the
Army's regulations or for the court to interfere with its day-to-
day operations.

But he noted that the Army's own regulations on medical care use
words such as "obligation" and "duty."

"It does not have discretion not to exercise its discretion at
all," Patterson said.

Next, attorney Charles Scarborough argued for the government,
saying its obligations are discrete, and not "broad, programmatic
things like providing medical care."

"What's so hard about 'broad, programmatic' medical care?" Judge
William Fletcher asked "You got to provide medical care.  That's
not broad and programmatic.'"

Fletcher posed a hypothetical scenario in which an active-duty
service member volunteers to be a test subject and doesn't need
medical care until a year after the test is over.

Scarborough said a "critical finding" in the district court was
that it is unclear if the Army regulation applies retroactively.

"It is a forward-looking thing," Scarborough said.  "The Army has
been bulking up its regulations about testing subjects and
prescribing with greater degrees of specificity and care."

Judge Wallace called it "bothersome" that the attorney viewed the
regulation as applying only to the future.

"If a person is discharged for less than honorable reasons, they
can't get anything from the Army or VA," Wallace said.

Judge Fletcher added: "I have trouble thinking that it's
commonsensical that the Army would say to these guys, 'We will
provide medical care for you as a result of these potentially
highly dangerous experiments for which you were volunteering, but
if for some reason you get a general discharge, forget it.'

"That's a pretty cruel thing for the Army to do," Fletcher said.
"And I don't think the Army is a cruel institution."

Scarborough said that Congress clearly mandates that veterans
obtain care through the VA, and the district court refused to
order the Army to do something the VA already does.

"That is a generic scheme," Judge Mary M. Schroeder said.  "It's
not set up with the purpose of fulfilling this particular duty."

In his two-minute rebuttal, attorney Patterson said that new VA
legislation adopted this year refers veterans who are waiting for
medical care to the Department of Defense.

"This further undercuts the argument from the Army that Congress
somehow made the VA the exclusive place that you have to go for
treatment."

Scarborough then discussed the Army's duty to inform test subjects
about their rights, and reiterated that the regulation is
"forward-looking."

"We are doing a whole lot to notify people," Scarborough said.
"There has been lots of research conducted and commissioned by the
Army."

Judge Fletcher said: "I simply do not understand why the
government is fighting this, because it seems to be such an
elemental obligation of the Army," referring to its duty to warn
test subjects.

"You've got patriotic volunteers to engage in dangerous
experiments for the good of their country. Some of the dangers
were understood at the time, some of them were not," Fletcher
said.  "And the Army is now saying, 'We are not going to do
everything we can; we have no legal obligation to inform you of
what we now know of the dangers of the tests you underwent.'"

Scarborough said the Army objected to the district court's ruling
that it continue to look for information about past test subjects.

"The question is simply, 'Could the Army being doing more?'"
Scarborough said.  "And that is not the proper role for the court
to be engaged in."

Judge Wallace said it seems "perfectly sensible" for the district
court to order the Army to act based on the court's order and said
he did not understand why the Army was appealing the decision.

Scarborough said it is not appropriate for the district court "to
be sitting in as the programmatic manager of the Army's ongoing
notification efforts."

On rebuttal, attorney Patterson said that the district court's
injunction leaves discretion to the Army about how to provide
notice, and the order "does not require the Army to go out and
endlessly search and report back to the court."

Judge Fletcher thanked both attorneys for their "very good
arguments."


US TENNIS: Wins Summary Judgment in Labor Class Suit by Umpires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Days after the U.S. Open dished out medals, a New York judge
picked umps as the losers in their labor bout against the U.S.
Tennis Association, according to Adam Klasfeld, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

Women's singles champion Serena Williams, who picked up her third
consecutive title on September 7, 2014, did not appear in this
court.  Neither did this year's Grand Slam champion Marin Cilic,
whose victory redeemed him from the recent scandal of his four-
month doping suspension in 2013.

The U.S. Tennis Association's opponents in the Southern District
of New York were the umpires, a group of professionals who mostly
earn their livings with others jobs like attorneys, executives and
business managers.

Lead plaintiff Steven Meyer has a private practice in Florida, and
his colleague Aimee Johnson said in court papers that she "worked
part time as a district attorney in Louisiana."

Larry Mulligan-Gibbs serves as a director of the pharmaceutical
giant GlaxoSmithKline.

Representing a class of chair and line umpires, they sued the USTA
three years ago for allegedly stiffing them on overtime since
2005.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter described their daily routines
come tournament-time, in a 15-page opinion on September 11, 2014.

Clocking in as early as 10 a.m., the umpires usually spend between
10 and 11 hours at the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center,
including travel time, early arrival, downtime and meal breaks.

"Each day, play begins at 11:00 am and ends anytime between early
evening and well past midnight, depending on the weather and the
length of the matches being played," the opinion states.

The umpires earn a fixed daily rate of $115 to $200 per day for
this work, depending on their certification level, and they
collect $40 for the days they are not working at the tournament.

"The USTA also pays some travel, meal, and equipment costs for
umpires -- a stipend for airfare, hotel expenses at a designated
hotel for a shared room, a nominal meal credit at the National
Tennis Center, and cost of uniforms," the opinion states.

The umpires pay for their own sunblock, watches, tape measures and
other supplies.

The USTA lists them as independent contractors, and the umpires
typically identify themselves that way on their tax returns

In their class action, however, the umpires contended that they
should be treated as employees.

Disagreeing, Judge Carter wrote that they are "highly skilled
professionals who exert a high degree of control over their work."

"They have immense discretion, within the parameters of the rules
of tennis, to conduct their duties -- whether it be to suspend
play or to report or penalize a player for a rules infraction,"
his opinion states.  "They invest in themselves as professional
umpires by pursuing additional certifications and officiating
other tournaments.  They control their own schedules, and even
decide annually whether to apply to officiate for the U.S. Open.
Their association with USTA may recur annually, but the duration
of their relationship is short-lived."

Lawyers for both parties did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The case is Steven Meyer, et al. v. United States Tennis
Association, Case No. 1:11-cv-06268 (ALC)(MHD), in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Defending Against Garden City v. PSI
------------------------------------------------------
Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI, is a shareholder
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against Psychiatric Solutions,
Inc. ("PSI") and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations
of federal securities laws.

Universal Health Services, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8,
2014, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, that the
Company continues to defend the case vigorously.

"Should we be deemed liable in this matter, or enter into a
settlement, we believe we would be entitled to commercial
insurance recoveries for at least a portion of amounts paid by us,
subject to certain limitations and deductibles. Included in our
consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2014, including an
increase to the estimated reserve recorded during the second
quarter of 2014 that did not have a material impact on our
financial statements, is an estimated reserve (current liability)
of $25 million and commercial insurance recoveries (current asset)
of $20 million. Trial is scheduled to begin in mid-September,
2014," the Company said.

"Although we cannot predict the outcome, it is possible the
commercial insurance recoveries may not be sufficient to cover the
ultimate disposition of this matter (including related legal fees)
which would make us liable for a potentially material excess
amount."


VINH FAT: Recalls Frozen Pork Spring Rolls, Pork Buns & Wontons
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 10, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Vinh Fat Food Products
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on Sept. 5, 2014 has been updated
to include additional distribution information and selling dates.
This additional information was identified during the outbreak
investigation led by Alberta Health Services (AHS) and supported
by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Vinh Fat Food Products is recalling frozen pork spring rolls, pork
buns and pork wontons from the marketplace due to possible E. coli
O157:H7 contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled
products described.

These frozen pork products have been sold from Vinh Fat Food
Products, 10630-97th Street, Edmonton, and may have also been sold
by other retailers in Alberta.

Consumers who are unsure if they have the affected products are
advised to check with their retailer.

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

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

The recall was triggered by the E. coli O157:H7 foodborne outbreak
investigation led by Alberta Health Services and supported by the
CFIA.

As the investigation proceeds, if other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

Alberta Health Services and the CFIA are verifying that industry
is removing recalled products from the marketplace.


VIVINT INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Helton and Melanie Helton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Vivint, Inc., Vivint Solar, Inc.,
Case No. 3:14-cv-02165 (S.D. Cal., September 11, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, by unlawfully obtaining consumer reports on potential
customers without the knowledge or consent of those potential
customers.

The Defendants own and operate a home automation and security
company based in Provo, Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William L. Conti, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM L. CONTI
      330 Rancheros Drive, Suite 212
      San Marcos, CA 92069-6391
      Telephone: (760) 891-0801
      Facsimile: (760) 891-0803
      E-mail: wlc@wcontilaw.com


W.R. GRACE: Lukins & Annis to Get 10% Share of Scott's Fee Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Chapter 11 cases of W.R. Grace & Co., Delaware Bankruptcy
Judge Kevin J. Carey adopted the recommendations of the Rule 706
Expert regarding the fee allocation claim of Lukins & Annis, P.S.
He ruled that, consistent with the recommendations in the Expert
Report, Lukins & Annis is awarded a 10% share of Darrell W.
Scott's portion of the Common Fund Fee Award ($667,500).

In December 2008, Claimants involved in extensive litigation with
Grace regarding Zonolite Attic Insulation filed a motion to
approve a class settlement and certification of the ZAI class,
which the Court preliminarily granted on January 16, 2009, and
finally approved on April 1, 2009.  The ZAI Class Settlement was
contingent on confirmation of a plan that contained a trust with
distribution procedures to effectuate the settlement.

The Debtors' First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization took
effect on February 3, 2014.  Four days later, the ZAI Class
Counsel filed a motion seeking a Common Fund Fee Award of 25% of
the first two payments in the class settlement, for a total fee in
the approximate amount of $16 million.  On February 28, Lukins &
Annis filed a partial joinder to the Motion of ZAI Class Counsel
for a Common Fund Fee Award, and Counter-Motion to Stay
Disbursement of any Common Fund Fee Award Pending Resolution of
All Common Fund Fee Allocation Disputes.  The Joinder and Counter-
Motion consented to the request for the Fee Award, but objected to
disbursement of the Fee Award pursuant to the allocation proposed
by ZAI Class Counsel, which did not include any allocation for
L&A.

ZAI Class Counsel proposed the following allocation of the Fee
Award:

     (1) Scott will receive 42.5% of the Fee Award
         (approximately $6,675,000);

     (2) Westbrook will receive 42.5% of the Fee Award
         (approximately $6,675,000);

     (3) Cabraser will receive 15% of the Fee Award
         (approximately $2,400,000);

     (4) McGarvey will receive $250,000 from the Fee Award; and

     (5) Ness will receive 10 percent of Westbrook's allocation
         of the Fee Award (approximately $667,500).

Lukins & Annis contends that it is entitled to a portion of the
Fee Award due to its active involvement in the ZAI matters from
their inception until December 31, 2004, when Scott, the attorney
who principally was handling the ZAI litigation, left Lukins &
Annis to form The Scott Law Group, P.S.  Lukins & Annis argues
that the firm's efforts contributed to the development of the ZAI
litigation.  Lukins & Annis stated that it did not have an
agreement with Mr. Scott regarding a cost and fee sharing
agreement related to the ZAI litigation.

On April 3, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order approving
the Fee Award and reimbursement of ZAI Class Counsels' expenses
from the fund created by the ZAI Class Settlement, but requiring
the Fee Award to be held in trust pending further order of the
Court regarding the Lukins & Annis Joinder and Counter-Motion.

Also on April 3, at the request of the parties, the Bankruptcy
Court entered an Order appointing Judith K. Fitzgerald as a Rule
706 Expert to issue a report and recommendation regarding the
Lukins & Annis Joinder and Counter-Motion.  The Rule 706 Order
included a schedule for Lukins & Annis to file a motion and
accompanying documentation supporting its claim to an allocation
of the Fee Award, and for parties to file responses and replies
thereto. Thereafter, Judge Fitzgerald had discretion to, inter
alia, determine the manner, timing and scope of evidence and other
submissions with respect to the allocation dispute. The Rule 706
Order also set a deadline for filing responses to the Expert
Report after it was issued by Fitzgerald.

On April 18, 2014, Lukins & Annis filed the Motion for an
Allocation of the ZAI Class Action Common Fund Fee Award.  On
April 28, 2014, responses to the Motion were filed by ZAI Class
Counsel, the Reorganized Debtors, ZAI Class 7B Trustee, and the
Property Damage Future Claimants' Representative.

On June 25, 2014, Judge Fitzgerald filed her Expert Report,
indicating that:

     (1) Lukins & Annis did not withdraw from the case
         "voluntarily" as that term has been explained in
         applicable case law.

     (2) Lukins & Annis absorbed the risk of the state court
         Barbanti litigation, which indirectly led to the ZAI
         class settlement, and is entitled to a nominal fee but
         not to reimbursement of expenses.

     (3) Lukins & Annis efforts contributed an indirect benefit
         to the ZAI class.

     (4) Although Class Counsels' allocation of the $16 million
         fee is entitled to great weight, Lukins & Annis has
         established an entitlement to a nominal share and,
         accordingly, Class Counsels' proposed allocation should
         be adjusted to provide for such share.

     (5) Alternatively, if the Court finds Lukins & Annis'
         services did not provide a benefit to the ZAI class
         sufficient to entitle Lukins & Annis to an allocation
         of the Common Fund Fee then, similarly, the Bankruptcy
         Court should find that neither McGarvey nor Ness provided
         a sufficient benefit to the ZAI class to be entitled to a
         fee.

     (6) From the submissions of the parties and review of
         applicable law, the Court should award Lukins & Annis
         10% of Darrell Scott's share of the Common Fund Fee,
         in the amount of [$667,500].

Judge Fitzgerald further recommended that Lukins & Annis be denied
any reimbursement of its costs as no notice was provided to the
ZAI class that such a request would be made and no other non-class
counsel will receive a disbursement based on costs.

On July 7, 2014, ZAI Class Counsel filed a response to the Expert
Report, attaching a declaration of Darrell W. Scott, that
challenged certain factual findings in the Expert Report regarding
Scott's representations to Lukins & Annis about reaching a fee
arrangement at a later time as incorrect.

Also on July 7, Lukins & Annis filed a response to the Expert
Report, asking that the Expert Report's recommendation be revised
to provide for an allocation to Lukins & Annis of at least 17.03%
of Scott's share of the Common Fund Fee Award, or approximately
$1,136,666.  Lukins & Annis argues that the Expert Report
recognized that it provided an important benefit to the ZAI Class
Settlement, but then recommended only a "nominal" allocation to
Lukins & Annis from the Fee Award.

Lukins & Annis contends that the award does not recognize that it
expended approximately 5,602 hours of time, with an actual dollar
value of $1,136,666.00 (at historical rates), for investigating,
developing, and litigating the state court Barbanti Litigation and
the ZAI property damages claims in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Lukins & Annis further argues that Fitzgerald gave undue deference
to ZAI Class Counsel's proposed allocation of the Fee Award,
especially in light of ZAI Class Counsel's unreasonable attempt to
completely bar Lukins & Annis from any recovery. Lukins & Annis
also argues that the recommended allocation award is not fair and
equitable when compared to the proposed allocation to other
counsel and the contributions of those firms to the ZAI Class
Settlement.

The ZAI Class Counsel meanwhile asked the Court to accept Judge
Fitzgerald's report and recommendation due to her experience in
mass tort bankruptcies and her familiarity with the ZAI
litigation. Further, ZAI Class Counsel responds to the comparison
in Lukins & Annis' Response between Lukins & Annis' contribution
to the ZAI Class Settlement and the work performed by other
counsel. ZAI Class Counsel pointed out that Lukins & Annis
received $582,005.68 in court-approved post-petition special
counsel fees, while the Fee Award represents the only compensation
some other attorneys will receive in connection with the ZAI
litigation.

A copy of Judge Carey's September 3, 2014 Memorandum and Order is
available at http://is.gd/0W1ruefrom Leagle.com.

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally.

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future
asbestos personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for
asbestos property damage claims.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an
order affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Plan.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on
Jan. 31, 2011.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Certified 2 Classes of Cal. Truck Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified two classes of California truck drivers
who say Wal-Mart failed to provide them with a minimum wage, but a
class cannot advance wage-statement claims, reports Courthouse
News Service.

The case is Charles Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. C
08-05221 SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.


WARINEZ LLC: "Danilo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Danilo, and all others similarly-situated individuals v.
Warinez, LLC, Florida Limited Liability Company and Wilson A
Arinez Abdala, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23366 (S.D. Fla.,
September 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Warinez, LLC is a Florida corporation that regularly sold,
handled, or worked on goods and materials that had been moved in
or produced for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Definition in Washer Product Case Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 12, 2010, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3),
the Court certified a liability-only class of Ohio Plaintiffs in
IN RE: WHIRLPOOL CORP. FRONT-LOADING WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 1:08-WP-65000, MDL NO. 2001, (N.D. Ohio).
Plaintiffs now move to modify the class definition, while
Defendant Whirlpool objects and moves to decertify the Ohio class
entirely.

District Judge Christopher A. Boyko in an opinion and order dated
September 2, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/h5QKEWfrom Leagle.com, ruled that Plaintiffs' motion
is granted in part and Whirlpool's motion is denied.  The Court
modified the class definition and certified the liability-only
class of Ohio Plaintiffs as: All persons who are current residents
of Ohio and who purchased certain models (listed below) of the
"Whirlpool Duet(R) Washing Machine" for primarily personal, family
or household purposes, and not for resale, in Ohio.

   "Whirlpool Duet(R) Washing Machine" is defined to include
   Whirlpool Duet(R), Duet HT(R), and Duet Sport(R) Front-Loading
   Automatic Washers only, with the following model numbers and
   manufacture dates:

   Model No. Manufacture Dates GHW9100 All GHW9200 All GHW9150
   All GHW9250 All GHW9400 All GHW9160 All GHW9300 All GHW9460
   WFW8500 All WFW9200 All WFW8300 All on or before 09/30/09
   WFW9400 All on or before 02/28/09 WFW8410 All on or before
   09/30/09 WFW8400 All on or before 09/30/09 WFW9600 All WFW9500
   All on or before 02/28/09 WFW8200 All WFW9300 All WFW9250 All
   on or before 09/30/09 WFW9150 All on or before 09/30/09

Excluded from the class are: (1) Whirlpool Duet(R) Washing
Machines with model numbers and manufacture dates not listed
above; (2) Washing Machines purchased through Whirlpool's Employee
Purchase Program; (3) Whirlpool, any entity in which Whirlpool has
a controlling interest, its legal representatives, officers,
directors, employees, assigns, and successors; (4) the Judge to
whom this case is assigned, any member of the Judge's staff
(including the Special Master and his staff) and any member of the
Judge's or the Special Master's immediate family; (5) persons or
entities who distribute or resell the Washing Machines; (6)
government entities; and (7) claims for personal injury, wrongful
death and/or emotional distress.

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Brian G.
Ruschel & Robert T. Glickman -- rtg@mccarthylebit.com -- McCarthy,
Lebit, Crystal & Liffman.

Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Alison G.
Gushue -- AlisonGushue@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis,
Jason L. Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com --
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Jordan Elias --
jelias@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Mark P.
Chalos -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
Richard M. Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Stuart M. Eppsteiner --
stuarteppsteiner@eppsteiner.com -- Eppsteiner & Fiorica, Sudarsana
Srinivasan -- dsrinivasan@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Brian G. Ruschel, Robert T. Glickman --
rtg@mccarthylebit.com -- McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman &
Steven A. Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Chimicles &
Tikellis.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by David R. Kott --
dkott@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, Galen D. Bellamy --
bellamy@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, Heather M. Lutz -
- hmlutz@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, James T.
Irvin, III -- jim.irvin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, Joel S. Neckers -- neckers@wtotrial.com --
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, Michael Timothy Williams --
williams@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, Robert H.
Brunson -- robert.brunson@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins,
Riley & Scarborough, Anthony J. O'Malley -- ajomalley@vorys.com --
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Charles Philip Flick --
cflick@seippflick.com -- Seipp & Flick LLP, F. Daniel Balmert --
fdbalmert@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, James K.
Leader -- jkleader@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon, Scott S.
Barker -- barker@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, Scott T.
Baken -- BakenS@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler &
Krupman & Theresa R. Wardon -- wardon@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell.

Maytag Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Philip Flick
-- cflick@seippflick.com -- Seipp & Flick LLP & Michael Timothy
Williams -- williams@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell.

The Procter & Gamble Company, Movant, represented by Amanda P.
Lenhart -- amanda.lenhart@dinslaw.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl &
Elizabeth M. Shaffer -- elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore
& Shohl.

David Rosenblum Cohen, Special Master, represented by David
Rosenblum Cohen -- david@specialmaster.biz -- Law Office of David
R. Cohen.


WINDOW-FIX INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vincenzo Randello, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Window-Fix, Inc., and John Cappello, Case No. 1:14-cv-
05328 (E.D.N.Y., September 11, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Window-Fix, Inc. is a window repair and replacement company owned
by John Cappello located at 335-347 38th Street, Brooklyn, New
York 11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincenzo Randello, Esq.
      Anthony G. Mango, Esq.
      MANGO & IACOVIELLO LLP
      14 Penn Plaza, Suite 1919
      New York, NY 10122
      Telephone: (212) 695-5454
      Facsimile: (212) 695-0797
      E-mail: amango@mandilaw.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Faces Securities Class Action in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a WWE
stockholder has filed a class action lawsuit against World
Wrestling Entertainment Inc. for violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Curtis Swanson filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of people
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of WWE between
Oct. 31 and May 15, according to a complaint filed Aug. 25 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Mr. Swanson claims WWE, Vincent K. McMahon and George A. Barrios
all violated the Securities Exchange Act and caused him and class
members damages.

"WWE is an integrated media and entertainment company that was
founded in Stamford, Connecticut in 1980 and focuses on the
wrestling entertainment business worldwide," the complaint states.
"[Thurs]day, WWE primarily operates in four core segments: Live
and Televised Entertainment, Consumer Products, Digital Media, and
WWE Studios."

The company's flagship televised entertainment includes its Monday
Night Raw and Friday Night Smackdown properties which air in the
United States on Comcast Corporation's USA Network and Syfy
Channel, according to the suit.

Swanson claims this matter arises out of false and misleading
statements about the WWE's much publicized ability to transform
the company's earnings profile through, among other things, the
negotiation of a lucrative new long-term television license deal.

"This new television deal was supposed to be the 'primary driver'
of WWE's transformation," the complaint states.  "In particular,
defendants caused WWE to issue false and misleading statements in
WWE's public filings, press releases and conference calls that
touted the company's ability to command a fee in its upcoming
negotiations to renew its U.S. television license agreement worth
double the value of the existing agreement."

The defendants claimed that their ability to command a premium fee
in WWE's upcoming negotiations to renew its television license
agreement by pointing to WWE's high ratings, DVR-proof live
programming, potential to attract multiple bidders and comparing
the company's new deal to recent license agreements for live
sporting events.

Swanson claims the defendants downplayed the fact that advertisers
pay less to reach WWE's viewers than traditional sports and any
other show on the USA Network and the negative impact on the
television license negotiations resulting from the company's
launch of its WWE Network.

"Defendants, however, could not maintain their ruse concerning the
company's business prospects indefinitely," the complaint states.
"WWE was not able to negotiate the lucrative television rights
deal that defendants led investors to expect."

On May 15, WWE announced that it had reached a multi-year deal
with NBCUniversal Cable Entertainment to distribute its Monday
Night Raw and Friday Night Smackdown properties, according to the
suit.

Swanson claims absent from the release was any information
concerning the value and length of the agreement.

"On that same day, after the market closed, WWE issued a press
release which provided investors with some insight into the true
value of the company's key content agreements," the complaint
states.  "The press release revealed that the annual value of all
of WWE's key television distribution agreements increased by
approximately $92 million, which includes an increase of
approximately $57 million for the U.S. market."

Thus, contrary to the defendants' previous statements concerning
WWE's ability to double the value of its television license
agreement, the actual value increase was only approximately 50
percent, according to the suit.

Mr. Swanson claims when the WWE revealed the truth about the value
of its new distribution deal, the stock price of WWE fell to
$11.27 per share on May 16, a decline of 43 percent from the
previous closing price of $19.93 per share.

The WWE made false and misleading statements and caused Swanson
and the class members harm, according to the suit.

Mr. Swanson claims the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Mr. Swanson is seeking class certification and compensatory
damages.  He is being represented by Nancy A. Kulesa, Shannon L.
Hopkins, Sebastian Tonatore and Stephanie Bartone of Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.

The case is assigned to District Judge Janet C. Hall.

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut case number:
3:14-cv-01228


ZYNGA INC: Sept. 19 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported securities class
action captioned DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-
04007-JSW, was filed on July 30, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company, and certain of the Company's current and former
directors, officers, and executives. Additional purported
securities class actions containing similar allegations were filed
in the Northern District.

On September 26, 2012, the court consolidated various of the class
actions as In re Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No.
12-cv-04007-JSW. On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order
appointing a lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff
and another named plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

On February 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave
to file an amended complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint on May 2, 2014, and briefing on the motion was
completed in June 2014. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for
September 19, 2014.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets, and operates online social games as
live services played over the Internet and on social networking
sites and mobile platforms.


ZYNGA INC: Briefing on Bid to Stay and Demurrer Completed in Aug.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported securities class
action captioned Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. was filed on August
1, 2012, in San Francisco County Superior Court. The action was
removed to federal court, and was later remanded to San Francisco
County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements in connection with an April 2012 secondary
offering of Class A common stock. The plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock
pursuant or traceable to the secondary offering.

On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to stay the action
and a demurrer arguing that the complaint should be dismissed
because the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims. On August
26, 2013, the court issued orders overruling the demurrer and
granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the action pending a
ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal securities class
action.

On May 19, 2014, the court set a briefing schedule for the Company
to file a motion to stay the action and a demurrer arguing that
the complaint should be dismissed because it fails to state a
cause of action. Briefing on the motion to stay and demurrer was
scheduled to be completed on August 8, 2014, and a hearing was
scheduled for August 25, 2014.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets, and operates online social games as
live services played over the Internet and on social networking
sites and mobile platforms.


ZYNGA INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Lee" Suit Held in August
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014, that a purported class action
captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed on April 4, 2013, in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company,
and certain of the Company's current and former directors,
officers, and executives. The complaint alleges that the
defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the
release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in connection
with the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who
were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted
to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering.

The defendants removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware on May 10, 2013. On December
23, 2013, the district court granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the action to the Court of Chancery. On January 8, 2013,
the Chancery Court entered a scheduling order.

On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
March 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motion to
dismiss is pending. The plaintiff has opposed both motions.
Briefing on the motion to stay was completed in March 2014.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in April 2014.

A hearing on the motions was scheduled for August 22, 2014.

Zynga Inc. develops, markets, and operates online social games as
live services played over the Internet and on social networking
sites and mobile platforms.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Catalysts Must Face Claims It Hid Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at Trinidad & Tobago PTSC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Harrinanan, writing for News Day, reported that the long-
awaited removal of asbestos from the Public Transport Service
Corporation's (PTSC) City Gate, Port-of-Spain, in Trinidad &
Tobago, compound began.  The media was given a preview of the area
about to be worked on today by PTSC General Manager, Ronald Forde,
and Managing Director of Green Engineering, Dave Jacob, whose
company won the contract to remove the asbestos.

The process is expected to take three weeks to complete, with the
dismantled asbestos being stored in sealed containers which will
be taken to the Forres Park landfill, Claxton Bay. Forde said the
estimated cost of this would be "in excess of $1 million."

Questioned about the safety of disposing the asbestos at Forres
Park, Jacob explained this "is the only means of safe disposal for
asbestos. It's a natural mineral and we take it back where it came
from which is underground. It can be placed in seal containers
with polythene and duck tape and buried underground."

Jacob also noted the asbestos found at City Gate was "A safe
manifestation" because it is "non-viable" or category two
asbestos.

"It's cemented asbestos sheet. In fact, the asbestos fibres are
tightly bound within cement, or hard concrete cement and it is
very difficult for the asbestos fibres to become air-borne unless
you go about crushing, drilling or sawing the materials."

Air quality tests at City Gate have come back negative but Forde
told reporters PTSC "committed ourselves to removing it" in the
interests of the employees' health and peace of mind.

Tests have not yet been conducted on theemployees to determine if
they have been affected in any way by the presence of the
asbestos.

"There was no history of any employee at the PTSC who has gone
down with any ailment related to asbestos."

Forde then assured that tests would be done but didn't provide a
time frame.

Pressed by Newsday for a more specific answer, he replied, "In the
near future." Asbestos removal is currently taking place at the
central workshop where PTSC employees do bodywork, engineering
work and machine shop work.

Several buses were observed parked up on the compound.

Forde said while employees' work capacity is affected by the
asbestos situation, once the removal exercise is completed, "We
hope (to) get back to full operation."

"The ideal number we should have in operation for the routes we
service should be about 315, because of what we are experiencing
right now with the asbestos we have close to 200 buses."

He assured the corporation has been "very resilient during this
period because we have been moving our numbers, we may not be
keeping all the tight schedules but we have been (interacting)
with customers."

When asked about his 2014 -- 2015 budget wish list, Forde told
reporters he would like money for "a full retooling of the PTSC.

A new, modern, garage with diagnostic centres...and 65 additional
buses that would run on compressed natural gas (CNG)."

He said 35 such buses which have already been ordered from a
Chinese manufacturer cost $38 million.

Those buses are due in the country on November 9, with a launch
ceremony on December 3, 2014.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Has 328 Suits Pending at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 328 asbestos-related lawsuits against MRC
Global Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits
that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries
that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their
family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume
of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-
party manufactured products that our McJunkin Red Man Corporation
subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of June 30, 2014, we are
named a defendant in approximately 328 lawsuits involving
approximately 973  claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a
judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,
dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance
has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should
continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and
anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a
liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of
asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome
of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the
likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims
and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements is remote."

MRC Global Inc. is a distributor of pipe, valves and fittings and
related products and services to the energy industry. It operates
in two segments: North American segment and International segment.
Its North American segment includes over 180 branch locations, six
distribution centers in the United States, one distribution center
in Canada, 11 valve automation service centers and over 170 pipe
yards located in the oil and natural gas regions in North America.
Its International segment includes over 40 branch locations
throughout Europe, Asia and Australasia with distribution centers
in each of the United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia and 10
automation service centers in Europe and Asia. Effective January
6, 2014, MRC Global Inc a unit of GS Capital Partners LP
subsidiary of Goldman Sachs Group Inc's Goldman Sachs & Co unit,
acquired Stream AS. In May 2014, MRC Transmark Pte. Ltd acquired
MSD Engineering (Pte) Ltd. In June 2014, its MRC Teamtrade
subsidiary acquired Hypteck AS.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Records $385MM PI Claims Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNSF Railway Company recorded $385 million as the best estimate of
the Company's future obligation for the settlement of personal
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

Personal injury claims, including asbestos claims and employee
work-related injuries and third-party injuries (collectively,
other personal injury), are a significant expense for the railroad
industry. Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are
subject to the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act
(FELA) rather than state workers' compensation laws. FELA's system
of requiring the finding of fault, coupled with unscheduled awards
and reliance on the jury system, contributed to increased expenses
in past years. Other proceedings include claims by non-employees
for punitive as well as compensatory damages. A few proceedings
purport to be class actions. The variability present in settling
these claims, including non-employee personal injury and matters
in which punitive damages are alleged, could result in increased
expenses in future years. BNSF Railway has implemented a number of
safety programs designed to reduce the number of personal injuries
as well as the associated claims and personal injury expense.

BNSF Railway records an undiscounted liability for personal injury
claims when the expected loss is both probable and reasonably
estimable. The liability and ultimate expense projections are
estimated using standard actuarial methodologies. Liabilities
recorded for unasserted personal injury claims are based on
information currently available. Due to the inherent uncertainty
involved in projecting future events such as the number of claims
filed each year, developments in judicial and legislative
standards and the average costs to settle projected claims, actual
costs may differ from amounts recorded. BNSF Railway has obtained
insurance coverage for certain claims. Expense accruals and any
required adjustments are classified as materials and other in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.

The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
The heaviest exposure for BNSF Railway employees was due to work
conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that
were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other
types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component
parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were
substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985.

BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure
on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway
determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed
population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of
claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per
claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per
claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends.

Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience
against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim
payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as
necessary.

Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed
employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated
that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through
the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full
estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively
finite exposed population (former and current employees hired
prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably
estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data
(including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or
BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF
Railway projects that approximately 60, 80 and 95 percent of the
future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next
10, 15 and 25 years, respectively.

BNSF Railway estimates its other personal injury liability claims
and expense quarterly based on the covered population, activity
levels and trends in frequency and the costs of covered injuries.
Estimates include unasserted claims except for certain repetitive
stress and other occupational trauma claims that allegedly result
from prolonged repeated events or exposure. Such claims are
estimated on an as-reported basis because the Company cannot
estimate the range of reasonably possible loss due to other non-
work related contributing causes of such injuries and the fact
that continued exposure is required for the potential injury to
manifest itself as a claim. BNSF Railway has not experienced any
significant adverse trends related to these types of claims in
recent years.

BNSF Railway monitors quarterly actual experience against the
number of forecasted claims to be received, the forecasted number
of claims closing with payment and expected claim payments.
Adjustments to the Company's estimates are recorded quarterly as
necessary or more frequently as new events or revised estimates
develop.

At June 30, 2014, $85 million was included in current liabilities.
In addition, defense and processing costs, which are recorded on
an as-reported basis, were not included in the recorded liability.
The Company is primarily self-insured for personal injury claims.

Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future
costs to settle personal injury claims may range from
approximately $340 million to $455 million. However, BNSF Railway
believes that the $385 million recorded at June 30, 2014, is the
best estimate of the Company's future obligation for the
settlement of personal injury claims.

The amounts recorded by BNSF Railway for personal injury
liabilities were based upon currently known facts. Future events,
such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the
average cost of disposing of claims, as well as the numerous
uncertainties surrounding personal injury litigation in the United
States, could cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than
projected.

Although the final outcome of personal injury matters cannot be
predicted with certainty, considering among other things the
meritorious legal defenses available and liabilities that have
been recorded, it is the opinion of BNSF Railway that none of
these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. However,
the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a
particular quarter or fiscal year.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Insurance Company, Ltd. (BNSF IC), a
wholly-owned subsidiary of BNSF, provides insurance coverage for
certain risks, FELA claims, railroad protective and force account
insurance claims and certain excess general liability and property
coverage, and certain other claims which are subject to
reinsurance. During the six months ended June 30, 2014 and 2013,
BNSF IC wrote insurance coverage with premiums totaling $77
million and $90 million, respectively, for BNSF Railway, net of
reimbursements from third parties. During this same time, BNSF
Railway recognized $41 million and $49 million, respectively, in
expense related to those premiums, which is classified as
purchased services in the Consolidated Statements of Income. At
June 30, 2014, unamortized premiums remaining on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet were $43 million. During the six months ended June
30, 2014 and 2013, BNSF IC made claim payments totaling $76
million and $38 million, respectively, for settlement of covered
claims. At June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, claims receivables
from BNSF IC were $3 million and $35 million, respectively.

BNSF Railway Company operates one of the largest railroad networks
in North America. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Burlington Northern
Santa Fe, the company provides freight transportation over a
network of about 32,500 route miles of track across two-thirds of
the western US and two provinces in Canada. About 23,000 miles of
that track are company owned, while the remainder is owned and
permitted by other railroads. BNSF Railway owns or leases a fleet
of about 6,900 locomotives. It also has some 30 intermodal
facilities that help to transport agricultural, consumer, and
industrial products, as well as coal. In addition to major cities
and ports, BNSF Railway serves smaller markets in alliance with
short-line partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend itself in numerous asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Like hundreds of other industrial companies,
we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of
FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or
equipment manufactured or sold by businesses classified as
discontinued operations. We intend to continue managing these
cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have
established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued
operations and are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of any
exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve. Our
experience has been that the overall trends in terms of the rate
of filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential
defendants has changed over time, and that filing rates as to us
in particular have varied significantly over the last several
years. We are a peripheral defendant -- that is, we have never
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a
result, claim filing rates against us have yet to form a
predictable pattern, and we are unable to project a reasonably
accurate future filing rate and thus, we are presently unable to
reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims
that may be filed in the future."

FMC Corporation (FMC) is a diversified chemical company. The
Company operates in three business segments: Agricultural
Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals. Its
Agricultural Products segment develops, markets and sells all
three classes of crop protection chemicals, such as insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides, with particular strength in
insecticides and herbicides. Specialty Chemicals consists of its
BioPolymer and lithium businesses and focuses on food ingredients
that are used to enhance texture, color, structure and physical
stability, and lithium for energy storage, specialty polymers and
pharmaceutical synthesis. Its Industrial Chemicals segment
manufactures a range of inorganic materials. In March 2014, the
Company announced that it has completed the sale of its Peroxygens
business to affiliates of One Equity Partners. In May 2014, the
Company established new natural colors blending facility at its
Newark, Del., manufacturing site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend itself against numerous lawsuits
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.

The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-
defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Mississippi and
Louisiana by approximately 100 plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of individuals
alleging personal injury or death, primarily under the Jones Act,
purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs
and associated facilities during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"In December 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of
the plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a
nominal amount. While we believe the settlement will be approved
by the Court, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate
outcome.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims and
have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and
challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still
ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature
of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

"In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, we
have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in
litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect final
disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating
results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the
ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc (Ensco) is a provider of offshore contract drilling
services to the international oil and gas industry. As of December
31, 2011, its rig fleet included seven drillships, 13 dynamically
positioned semisubmersible rigs, seven moored semisubmersible
rigs, 49 jackup rigs and one barge rig. Its customers include
national and international oil companies. On May 31, 2011, the
Company completed a merger transaction (the Merger) with Pride
International, Inc., (Pride), ENSCO International Incorporated, an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary and predecessor of Ensco plc
(Ensco Delaware), and ENSCO Ventures LLC, an indirect, wholly
owned subsidiary of Ensco plc (Merger Sub). Pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, Merger Sub merged with and into
Pride, with Pride as the surviving entity and an indirect, wholly
owned subsidiary of Ensco plc. In February 2014, Ensco PLC sold
its two remaining cold-stacked jackup rigs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 29,037 Fibro Cases at June 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 29,037 asbestos-related cases against
General Cable Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014.

Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by the
Company. As of June 27, 2014, the Company is a defendant in
approximately 29,037 cases brought in Federal District Courts
throughout the United States. In the six months ended June 27,
2014, 55 asbestos cases were brought against the Company. In the
calendar year 2013, 133 asbestos cases were brought against the
Company. In the last 20 years, General Cable has had no cases
proceed to verdict. In many of the cases, General Cable was
dismissed as a defendant before trial for lack of product
identification. As of June 27, 2014, 22,063 asbestos cases have
been dismissed. In the six months ended June 27, 2014, 130
asbestos cases were dismissed. As of December 31, 2013, 21,933
cases were dismissed. With regards to the approximately 29,037
remaining pending cases, General Cable is aggressively defending
these cases based upon either lack of product identification as to
General Cable manufactured asbestos-containing product and/or lack
of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of General Cable
product.

For cases outside the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") as of
June 27, 2014, Plaintiffs have asserted monetary damages in 370
cases. In 227 of these cases, plaintiffs allege only damages in
excess of some dollar amount (about $343 thousand per plaintiff);
in these cases there are no claims for specific dollar amounts
requested as to any defendant. In the 142 other cases pending in
state and federal district courts (outside the MDL), plaintiffs
seek approximately $448.0 million in damages from as many as 50
defendants. In one case, plaintiffs have asserted damages related
to General Cable in the amount of $10.0 million. In addition, in
relation to these 370 cases, there are claims of $331.0 million in
punitive damages from all of the defendants. However, many of the
plaintiffs in these cases allege non-malignant injuries. As of
June 27, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had accrued, on a
gross basis, approximately $4.8 million and $5.2 million,
respectively, and as of June 27, 2014 and December 31, 2013, had
recovered approximately $0.5 million and $0.5 million of insurance
recoveries for these lawsuits, respectively. The net amount of
$4.3 million and $4.7 million, as of June 27, 2014 and December
31, 2013 represents the Company's best estimate in order to cover
resolution of current and future asbestos-related claims.

Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is
relieved, when the Company receives a fully executed settlement
release from the Plaintiff's counsel. As of June 27, 2014 and June
28, 2013, aggregate settlement costs were $9.3 million and $8.7
million, respectively. For the three months ended June 27, 2014
and June 28, 2013, settlement costs totaled $0.3 million and $0.1
million, respectively. For the six months ended June 27, 2014 and
June 28, 2013, settlement costs totaled $0.4 million and $0.2
million, respectively. As of June 27, 2014 and June 28, 2013,
aggregate litigation costs were $23.8 million and $22.0 million,
respectively. For the three months ended June 27, 2014 and June
28, 2013, litigation costs were $0.5 million and $0.3 million,
respectively. For the six months ended June 27, 2014 and June 28,
2013, litigation costs were $0.9 million and $0.6 million,
respectively.

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems. The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW). The Company's product portfolio includes more
than 100,000 products. As of December 31, 2013, the Company
operated 56 manufacturing facilities, which included four
facilities owned by companies in which the Company has an equity
investment, in 25 countries with regional distribution centers
around the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 432 Pending Cases at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 432 total asbestos cases pending against AK Steel
Holding Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2014.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have
been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current
or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases
pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific
dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific
dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a
monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary
claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not
attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various
defendants.

There were 432 total asbestos cases pending against the Company at
June 30, 2014.

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of
the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at
the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a
claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible
at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be
determined through written interrogatories or other discovery
after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only
accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel
has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff
will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment
to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK
Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of
asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target
defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these
claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small
fraction of the damages initially claimed.

In the three months ended June 30, 2014, $0.2 was the approximate
net amount of dollars paid on behalf of AK Steel in settlement of
asbestos-related claims.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the
asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present
knowledge, and the factors set forth above, the Company believes
it is unlikely that the resolution in the aggregate of the
asbestos claims against AK Steel will have a materially adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated results of operations, cash
flows or financial condition. However, predictions as to the
outcome of pending litigation, particularly claims alleging
asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial uncertainties. These
uncertainties include (1) the significantly variable rate at which
new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of bankruptcies of other
companies currently or historically defending asbestos claims, (3)
the uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, (4) the type
and severity of the disease alleged to be suffered by each
claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of legislation
affecting asbestos litigation.

AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integrated
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels
and tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation (AK Steel and, together with AK Holding, the Company).
The Company's operations consist primarily of nine steelmaking and
finishing plants and tubular production facilities located in
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Company's operations
produce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels, including coated,
cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel products, and specialty
stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and strip
form, as well as carbon and stainless steel that is finished into
welded steel tubing. In addition, the Company's operations include
European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel
products and other materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,180 Outstanding PI Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., had approximately 2,180 outstanding
asbestos-related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof. At June 30, 2014, approximately 2,180 cases were
outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through June 30,
2014, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately $16.2
million. We acquired limited insurance coverage up to a fixed
amount for defense and indemnity costs associated with certain
asbestos-related claims and have exhausted all insurance coverage.

In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future;
(3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an
analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2013. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $24.4 million to
$37.4 million for the period through 2058. The change from the
prior year study was a $2.7 million decrease for the low end of
the range and a $4.1 million decrease for the high end of the
range. The decrease in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects our actual experience over the prior twelve months. Based
on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other
available information considered by us, we have concluded that no
amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely
than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability
we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of
the August 31, 2013 actuarial study, no adjustment to the asbestos
liability was recorded in our consolidated financial statements as
the difference between our recorded liability and the liability in
the actuarial report at the low end of the range was not material.
Legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in
earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying
statement of operations, are estimated, according to the updated
study, to range from $27.4 million to $48.1 million for the period
through 2058.

We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the third
quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position."

Standard Motor Products, Inc. (Standard Motor Products) is an
independent manufacturer and distributor of replacement parts for
motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket industry, with a
focus on the original equipment service market. The Company
operates in two segments: Engine Management Segment and
Temperature Control Segment. The Engine Management Segment
manufactures ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery
cables and fuel system parts. The Temperature Control Segment
manufactures and remanufactures air conditioning compressors, air
conditioning and heating parts, engine cooling system parts, power
window accessories, and windshield washer system parts. In January
2014, the Company acquired the assets of Pensacola Fuel Injection,
a privately-held company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Increased Net Reserves by $26MM at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., increased its net asbestos
reserves by $26 million for AIG Property Casualty, 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 estimation of loss reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims on insurance policies written many years ago
is subject to greater uncertainty than other types of claims due
to inconsistent court decisions as well as judicial
interpretations and legislative actions that in some cases have
tended to broaden coverage beyond the original intent of such
policies and in others have expanded theories of liability.

AIG Property Casualty's reserves relating to asbestos and
environmental claims reflect comprehensive ground-up and top-down
analyses performed periodically. In the six-month period ended
June 30, 2014, AIG Property Casualty increased its gross asbestos
reserves by $22 million and the net asbestos reserves by $26
million primarily due to minor changes in estimates, accretion of
discount, and anticipated uncollectible reinsurance. For the same
period, AIG Property Casualty increased its gross environmental
reserves by $119 million and its net environmental reserves by $50
million to reflect the results of a top-down analysis completed in
the second quarter.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage insurance
and other financial services to customers in more than 130
countries. It diverse offerings include products and services that
help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage risks
and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues primarily
from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal life insurance
and investment products, and income from investments. In May 2014,
the Company completed the sale of 100% interest in International
Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) to AerCap Holdings N.V.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Had $111-Mil. Reserves for Foreign Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., had $111 million net of
asbestos reserves relating to foreign risks written by non-U.S.
entities for AIG Property Casualty, 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 addition to the U.S. asbestos and environmental reserve
amounts, AIG Property Casualty also has asbestos reserves relating
to foreign risks written by non-U.S. entities of $137 million
gross and $111 million net as of June 30, 2014. The asbestos
reserves relating to non-U.S. risks written by non-U.S. entities
were $134 million gross and $108 million net as of December 31,
2013.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
company. The Company provides a range of property casualty
insurance, life insurance, retirement products, mortgage insurance
and other financial services to customers in more than 130
countries. It diverse offerings include products and services that
help businesses and individuals protect their assets, manage risks
and provide for retirement security. It earns revenues primarily
from insurance premiums, policy fees from universal life insurance
and investment products, and income from investments. In May 2014,
the Company completed the sale of 100% interest in International
Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) to AerCap Holdings N.V.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation continues to defend itself against numerous
asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2014.

Like many other industrial companies, the Company and/or one of
its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated
into certain products sold or distributed by the Company and/or
the named subsidiary. A substantial majority of these asbestos-
related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of
indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The rest have
been resolved for amounts that are not material to the Company,
either individually or in the aggregate. Based on information
currently available, the Company does not believe that the
resolution of any currently pending asbestos-related matters will
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Kaman Corporation conducts business in the aerospace and
distribution markets. The Company operates in two business
segments: Distribution and Aerospace. The Company has contracted
with Boeing to produce the wing control surfaces (inboard and
outboard flaps, slats and deceleron assemblies) for the United
States Air Force's A-10 fleet. Its bearings products are included
on military platforms manufactured in North America and Europe.
These products are used as original equipment and/or specified as
replacement parts by the manufacturers. The Sikorsky BLACK HAWK
helicopter cockpit program involves the manufacture of cockpits,
including the installation of all wiring harnesses, hydraulic
assemblies, control pedals and sticks, seat tracks, pneumatic
lines, and the composite structure. In April 2014, the Company
acquired the operating assets of B.W. Rogers Company and certain
affiliated entities by its Distribution Segment, acting through
its subsidiary, Kaman Fluid Power, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Boudreaux" Suit v. McDermott Int'l Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit entitled Boudreaux, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al.,
was dismissed, 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 December 16, 2005, a proceeding entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J.
Ray McDermott, Inc., et al. ("Antoine Suit"), was filed in the
24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, by
approximately 88 plaintiffs against approximately 215 defendants,
including our subsidiaries formerly known as JRMI and Delta Hudson
Engineering Corporation ("DHEC"), generally alleging injuries for
exposure to asbestos, and unspecified chemicals, metals and noise
while the plaintiffs were allegedly employed as Jones Act seamen.
This case was dismissed by the Court on January 10, 2007, without
prejudice to plaintiffs' rights to refile their claims. On January
29, 2007, 21 plaintiffs from the dismissed Antoine Suit filed a
matter entitled Boudreaux, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al. (the
"Boudreaux Suit"), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, against JRMI and the Company's
subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated, and
approximately 30 other employer defendants, alleging Jones Act
seaman status and generally alleging exposure to welding fumes,
solvents, dyes, industrial paints and noise. The Boudreaux Suit
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on May 2, 2007, which entered an
order in September 2007 staying the matter until further order of
the Court due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the co-
defendants. On June 18, 2014, the Boudreaux Suit was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

McDermott International, Inc. (MII) is a engineering, procurement,
construction and installation (EPCI) company. The Company is
focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas
projects worldwide. In April 2014, McDermott International Inc
announced that its subsidiary completed the sale of Harbor island
fabrication yard near Corpus Christi, Texas. The Company provides
fully integrated EPCI services; it delivers fixed and floating
production facilities, pipeline installations and subsea systems
from concept to commissioning. Its business segments consist of
Asia Pacific, Atlantic, Caspian and the Middle East. The Company's
Asia Pacific segment serves the needs of customers primarily in
Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand. The
Company's Atlantic segment serves the needs of customers primarily
in the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Trinidad and West Africa.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "New Antoine" v. McDermott Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc., et al.,
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.

On January 29, 2007, another 43 plaintiffs from the dismissed suit
entitled entitled Antoine, et al. vs. J. Ray McDermott, Inc., et
al., filed a matter entitled Antoine, et al. v. McDermott, Inc.,
et al. (the "New Antoine Suit"), in the 164th Judicial District
Court for Harris County, Texas, against JRMI, the Company's
subsidiary formerly known as McDermott Incorporated and
approximately 65 other employer defendants and 42 maritime
products defendants, alleging Jones Act seaman status and
generally alleging personal injuries for exposure to asbestos and
noise. On April 27, 2007, the District Court entered an order
staying all activity and deadlines in the New Antoine Suit, other
than service of process and answer/appearance dates, until further
order of the Court. The New Antoine Suit plaintiffs filed a motion
to lift the stay on February 20, 2009, which is pending before the
Texas District Court. On April 4, 2014, 20 of the plaintiffs in
the New Antoine Suit voluntarily dismissed their claims against
McDermott without prejudice to re-filing. The remaining plaintiffs
seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys'
fees. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the extent of a
potential judgment against us, if any, and the Company intends to
vigorously defend this suit.

McDermott International, Inc. (MII) is a engineering, procurement,
construction and installation (EPCI) company. The Company is
focused on designing and executing complex offshore oil and gas
projects worldwide. In April 2014, McDermott International Inc
announced that its subsidiary completed the sale of Harbor island
fabrication yard near Corpus Christi, Texas. The Company provides
fully integrated EPCI services; it delivers fixed and floating
production facilities, pipeline installations and subsea systems
from concept to commissioning. Its business segments consist of
Asia Pacific, Atlantic, Caspian and the Middle East. The Company's
Asia Pacific segment serves the needs of customers primarily in
Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand. The
Company's Atlantic segment serves the needs of customers primarily
in the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Trinidad and West Africa.


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

Tenneco Inc. is subject to lawsuits initiated by a significant
number of claimants alleging health problems as a result of
exposure to asbestos. In the early 2000's the Company was named in
nearly 20,000 complaints, most of which were filed in Mississippi
state court and the vast majority of which made no allegations of
exposure to asbestos from our product categories. Most of these
claims have been dismissed and the Company's current docket of
active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A
small number of claims have been asserted by railroad workers
alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars
manufactured by The Pullman Company, one of the Company's
subsidiaries. The substantial majority of the remaining claims are
related to alleged exposure to asbestos in the Company's
automotive products. Only a small percentage of the claimants
allege that they were automobile mechanics and a significant
number appear to involve workers in other industries or otherwise
do not include sufficient information to determine whether there
is any basis for a claim against Tenneco, Inc. The Company
believes, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely
that mechanics were exposed to asbestos by the Company's former
products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased
risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants
from a variety of industries. Additionally, the plaintiffs either
do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar
amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users
continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, the Company
may experience an increased number of these claims. The Company
vigorously defends itself against these claims as part of its
ordinary course of business. In future periods, the Company could
be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of these
matters are resolved unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to
claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial
process, the Company has regularly achieved favorable resolutions.
Accordingly, the Company presently believes that these asbestos-
related claims will not have a material adverse impact on its
future consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.

Tenneco Inc. (Tenneco) is a producer of emission control and ride
control products and systems for light, commercial and specialty
vehicle applications. The Company serves both original equipment
vehicle manufacturers (OEMs) and the repair and replacement
markets, or aftermarket, worldwide. The vehicle parts industry is
generally separated into two categories: original equipment (OE)
in which parts are sold directly for use by OEMs and commercial
vehicle engine manufacturers; and aftermarket in which replacement
parts are sold in varying quantities to wholesalers, retailers and
installers. In the OE category, parts suppliers are generally
divided into tiers Tier 1 suppliers that provide their products
directly to OEMs, and Tier 2 or Tier 3 suppliers that sell their
products principally to other suppliers for combination into the
other suppliers' own product offerings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Empire State Will Not Remove Fibro in Properties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., has no plans to remove or alter
asbestos or asbestos-containing building materials in certain of
its properties in a manner that would trigger federal and other
applicable regulations for asbestos removal, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are required to accrue costs that we are
legally obligated to incur on retirement of our properties which
result from acquisition, construction, development and/or normal
operation of such properties. Retirement includes sale,
abandonment or disposal of a property. Under that standard, a
conditional asset retirement obligation represents a legal
obligation to perform an asset retirement activity in which the
timing and/or method of settlement is conditional on a future
event that may or may not be within a company's control and a
liability for a conditional asset retirement obligation must be
recorded if the fair value of the obligation can be reasonably
estimated. Environmental site assessments and investigations have
identified asbestos or asbestos-containing building materials in
certain of our properties. As of June 30, 2014, management has no
plans to remove or alter these properties in a manner that would
trigger federal and other applicable regulations for asbestos
removal, and accordingly, the obligations to remove the asbestos
or asbestos-containing building materials from these properties
have indeterminable settlement dates. As such, we are unable to
reasonably estimate the fair value of the associated conditional
asset retirement obligation. However ongoing asbestos abatement,
maintenance programs and other required documentation are carried
out as required and related costs are expensed as incurred."

Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. is a self-administered and self-
managed real estate investment trust (REIT), which owns, manages,
operates, acquires and repositions office and retail properties in
Manhattan and the greater New York metropolitan area. The Company
operates in two segments: real estate and construction
contracting. As of June 30, 2013, the Company owned 12 office
properties (including one long-term ground leasehold interest)
encompassing approximately 7.7 million rentable square feet of
office space, which were approximately 83.5% leased (or 86.2%
giving effect to leases signed but not yet commenced as of that
date). Seven of these properties are located in the midtown
Manhattan market and encompass in the aggregate approximately 5.9
million rentable square feet of office space, including the Empire
State Building.


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

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

"As of June 30, 2014, we were subject to the asbestos claims, as
well as other legal proceedings and potential claims that have
arisen in the ordinary course of business.

"Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which we are a party
cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe that the
outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material effect on our results of operations, financial position
or cash flows."

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


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

The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate to
businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not involve
products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or relate
to previously owned businesses of the Company which are under new
ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers
or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed
to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified
Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are
being defended by, such sellers and new owners. These sellers and
new owners have met their obligations, in all respects, and the
Company does not have any reason to believe such parties would
fail to fulfill their obligations in the future; however, one of
these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. As of
June 30, 2014, no judgments have been rendered against the Company
as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes
it has strong defenses to the claims being asserted and intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters.

AMETEK, Inc. (AMETEK) is a global manufacturer of electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices with operations in North
America, Europe, Asia and South America. The Company markets its
products worldwide through two groups: the Electronic Instruments
Group (EIG) and the Electromechanical Group (EMG). EIG builds
monitoring, testing, calibration and display devices for the
process, aerospace, industrial, power and medical markets. EMG
produces engineered electromechanical connectors for hermetic
(moisture-proof) applications, specialty metals for niche markets
and brushless air-moving motors, blowers and heat exchangers. In
August 2014, the Company acquired AMPTEK, Inc. and Luphos GmbH.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., 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.

Some facilities owned by CenterPoint Energy contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CenterPoint Energy or its subsidiaries have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by
subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy, but most existing claims
relate to facilities previously owned by CenterPoint Energy's
subsidiaries, some of which are currently owned by an affiliate of
NRG. CenterPoint Energy anticipates that additional claims like
those received may be asserted in the future. In 2004 and early
2005, CenterPoint Energy sold its generating business, to which
most of these claims relate, to a company which is now an
affiliate of NRG. Under the terms of the arrangements regarding
separation of the generating business from CenterPoint Energy and
its sale of that business, ultimate financial responsibility for
uninsured losses from claims relating to the generating business
has been assumed by the NRG affiliate, but CenterPoint Energy has
agreed to continue to defend such claims to the extent they are
covered by insurance maintained by CenterPoint Energy, subject to
reimbursement of the costs of such defense by the NRG affiliate.
Although their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time,
CenterPoint Energy intends to continue vigorously contesting
claims that it does not consider to have merit and, based on its
experience to date, does not expect these matters, either
individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse
effect on CenterPoint Energy's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. is a domestic energy delivery company.
The Company's business segments include Electric Transmission and
Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution, Competitive Natural Gas
Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines, Field Services and Other
Operations. The Company serves metered customers primarily in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas.
The company also owns a 58.3% interest in a midstream partnership
it jointly controls with OGE Energy Corp. with operations in
natural gas and liquids-rich producing areas of Oklahoma, Texas,
Arkansas and Louisiana.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sept. 30 Set as Garlock Sealing Claims Bar Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court has set September 30, 2014, as the bar
date for filing proofs of asbestos-related claim in the Chapter 11
case of Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, according to Enpro
Industries, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

On June 5, 2010, GST LLC, Anchor and Garrison filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the "Bankruptcy
Court"). The filings were the initial step in a claims resolution
process, which is ongoing. The goal of the process is an efficient
and permanent resolution of all current and future asbestos claims
through court approval of a plan of reorganization, which
typically would establish a fund to which all asbestos claims
would be channeled for resolution. GST seeks an agreement with
asbestos claimants and other creditors on the terms of a plan for
the establishment of such a fund and repayment of creditors in
full, or in the absence of such an agreement, an order of the
Bankruptcy Court confirming such a plan.

In November 2011, GST filed a proposed plan of reorganization with
the Bankruptcy Court. GST's initial proposed plan called for a
trust to be formed, to which GST and affiliates would contribute
$200 million and which would be the exclusive remedy for future
asbestos personal injury claimants -- those whose claims arise
after confirmation of the plan. The initial proposed plan provided
that each present asbestos personal injury claim, i.e., any
pending claim or one that arises between the Petition Date and
plan confirmation, would be assumed by reorganized GST and
resolved either by settlement (pursuant to a matrix contained in
the proposed plan or as otherwise agreed), or by payment in full
of any final judgment entered after trial in federal court. The
initial proposed plan was revised and replaced by GST's first
amended proposed plan of reorganization filed in May 2014.
On April 13, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court granted a motion by GST
for the Bankruptcy Court to estimate the allowed amount of present
and future asbestos claims against GST for mesothelioma, a rare
cancer attributed to asbestos exposure, for purposes of
determining the feasibility of a proposed plan of reorganization.
The estimation trial began on July 22, 2013 and concluded on
August 22, 2013.

On January 10, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges announced his
estimation decision in a 65-page order. Citing with approval the
methodology put forth by GST at trial, the judge determined that
$125 million is the amount sufficient to satisfy GST's liability
for present and future mesothelioma claims. Judge Hodges adopted
GST's "legal liability" approach to estimation, focused on the
merits of claims, and rejected asbestos claimant representatives'
approach, which focused solely on GST's historical settlement
history. The judge's liability determination is for mesothelioma
claims only. The court has not yet determined amounts for GST's
liability for other asbestos claims and for administrative costs
that would be required to review and process claims and payments,
which will add to the amount.

In his opinion, Judge Hodges wrote, "The best evidence of
Garlock's aggregate responsibility is the projection of its legal
liability that takes into consideration causation, limited
exposure and the contribution of exposures to other products."

The decision validates the positions that GST has been asserting
for the more than four years it has been in this process.
Following are several important findings in the opinion:

* Garlock's products resulted in a relatively low exposure to
asbestos to a limited population, and its legal responsibility for
causing mesothelioma is relatively de minimis.

* Chrysotile, the asbestos fiber type used in almost all of
Garlock's asbestos products, is far less toxic than other forms of
asbestos. The court found reliable and persuasive Garlock's expert
epidemiologist, who testified that there is no statistically
significant association between low dose chrysotile exposure and
mesothelioma.

* The population that was exposed to Garlock's products was
necessarily exposed to far greater quantities of higher potency
asbestos from the products of others.

* The estimates of Garlock's aggregate liability that are based on
its historic settlement values are not reliable because those
values are infected with the impropriety of some law firms and
inflated by the cost of defense.

In June 2014, the official committee representing current asbestos
claimants filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court asking the
court to re-open the estimation process for further discovery and
alleging that GST misled the court in various respects during the
estimation trial. A hearing on the committee's motion has not yet
been scheduled.

On May 29, 2014, GST filed an amended proposed plan of
reorganization and a proposed disclosure statement. The plan
provides $275 million in total funding for (a) present and future
asbestos claims against GST that have not been resolved by
settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date, and (b)
administrative and litigation costs. The $275 million is to be
funded by GST ($245 million) and the Company's subsidiary, Coltec
Industries Inc ($30 million), through two facilities - a
settlement facility and a litigation facility. Funds contained in
the settlement facility and the litigation facility would provide
the exclusive remedies for current and future GST asbestos
claimants, other than claimants whose claims had been resolved by
settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date and were not paid
prior to the Petition Date. The plan provides that GST will pay in
full claims that had been resolved by settlement or verdict prior
to the Petition Date and that were not paid prior to the Petition
Date (with respect to claims resolved by verdict, such payments
will be made only to the extent the verdict becomes final). The
$275 million amount is more than double the $125 million that the
Bankruptcy Court found to be a reasonable and reliable measure of
the amount sufficient to satisfy present and future mesothelioma
claims against GST, and was determined based on an economic
analysis of the feasibility of the proposed plan.

The amended plan also provides that GST will pay settled asbestos
claims (those settled but not yet paid prior to the Petition Date)
in full. The Bankruptcy Court has set September 30, 2014, as the
bar date for filing proofs of claim for settled asbestos claims.
GST estimates its aggregate liability for settled asbestos claims
to be less than $10 million.

The purpose of the disclosure statement is to provide material
information about GST and the plan to creditors, who will decide
whether or not to support the plan. The disclosure statement must
be approved by the Bankruptcy Court before GST can send it to
creditors to solicit their support. The Bankruptcy Court has
scheduled a hearing on the disclosure statement in September 2014.

In June, GST also moved the Bankruptcy Court to approve plan
solicitation, voting and confirmation procedures and to set a
schedule for confirmation proceedings. The motion requests that
the Bankruptcy Court approve GST's proposed program for providing
notice of the process to known and unknown claimants, GST's
proposed rules for eligibility to cast votes on the plan, GST's
proposed form of ballots that must be cast by each class of
claimants, and GST's proposed schedule. The hearing on this
solicitation and scheduling motion is also scheduled for September
2014.

GST asked the Bankruptcy Court to schedule the plan confirmation
hearing to begin on July 15, 2015. GST anticipates that the plan
will be vigorously opposed by the official committee representing
current asbestos claimants.

GST continues to hope that it can reach a consensual resolution
with representatives of current and future claimants. GST has
stated that it continues to be willing to engage in discussions
with claimant representatives, recognizing that an agreed
settlement would provide the best path to certainty and finality
through section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, provide for faster
and more efficient completion of the case, save significant future
costs, and allow for the attainment of complete finality.

Confirmation and consummation of the plan are subject to a number
of risks and uncertainties, including the actions and decisions of
creditors and other third parties that have an interest in the
bankruptcy proceedings, delays in the confirmation or effective
date of a plan of reorganization due to factors beyond GST's or
our control, which would result in greater costs and the
impairment of value of GST, appeals and other challenges to the
plan, and risks and uncertainties affecting GST and Coltec's
ability to fund anticipated contributions under the plan as a
result of adverse changes in their results of operations,
financial condition and capital resources, including as a result
of economic factors beyond their control. Accordingly, we cannot
assure you that GST will be able to obtain Bankruptcy Court
approval of its amended plan of reorganization and the settlement
and resolution of claims and related releases of liability
embodied therein, and the time period for the resolution of the
bankruptcy proceedings is not presently determinable.

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Adelsflugel" Suit Remanded to La. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James J. Brady of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, in a ruling dated Aug. 21, 2014,
granted a motion for abstention and/or remand filed by the
plaintiffs in the wrongful death action styled ROSALIA G.
ADELSFLUGEL, ET AL., v. CONSOLIDATED ALUMINUM CORPORATION, ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-811-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.).  The Plaintiffs allege
under state law tort that the death of Albert B. Adelsflugel
resulted from his exposure to asbestos products.

In granting the motion for abstention and/or remand, Judge Brady
said the lawsuit, which had been litigated in state court for over
two years prior to removal, involves predominantly state law
issues and should be remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court,
Parish of East Baton Rogue, State of Louisiana.

A full-text copy of Judge Brady's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/jZ9jwBfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois' Bid to Junk "Ahnert" Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin issued, on Aug. 29, 2014, a findings
of fact and conclusions of law relating to its order granting
defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit styled BEVERLY AHNERT,
Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert,
Deceased, Plaintiff, v. BRAND INSULATION INC., BUILDING SERVICES
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC., CBS CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE
COMPANY OF WAUSAU, FOSTER WHEELER LLC, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, L
& S INSULATION COMPANY INC., OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., PABST BREWING
COMPANY, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY, MERCO-THERMOTEC INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-C-1456
(E.D. Wis.).

In granting Owens-Illinois' motion to dismiss, Judge Clevert
stated: "Beverly Ahnert knew of the diagnosis for three years
before dismissing Owens-Illinois from the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania case. She amended the complaint to add her name as a
plaintiff but chose not to add the mesothelioma claim until after
discovery had closed and summary judgment motions were being
decided. Hence, Owens-Illinois should not be forced to defend
against another action, particularly where the same plaintiff was
unable to produce evidence on the issue of asbestos exposure that
she needs to proceed in this current litigation."

A full-text copy of Judge Clevert's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0iiYgRfrom Leagle.com.

Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Daniel Ahnert, Deceased,, Plaintiff, represented by Jin Ho Chung,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan
Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices
Ltd.

Brand Insulations Inc, Defendant, represented by Donald H Carlson,
Crivello Carlson SC & Eric D Carlson, Crivello Carlson SC.

Building Services Industrial Supply Inc, Defendant, represented by
Gabrielle B Adams, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC, John J Laffey,
Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC & Sarah Thomas Pagels, Whyte
Hirschboeck Dudek SC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Roshan N Rajkumar, Esq.
-- roshan.rajkumar@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and Brooke
LLP.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, represented by
James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello
Carlson SC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven W Celba,
Celba LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Nora E Gierke,
Esq. -- ngierke@gierkefrank.com -- at Gierke Frank LLC.

L & S Insulation Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Frank R
Terschan, Esq. -- frank.terschan@tshglaw.com -- at Terschan
Steinle Hodan & Ganzer Ltd.

Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Michael T
Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A
Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson
SC.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendant, represented by Travis
J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson SC & James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson
SC.

Merco-Thermotec Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher P
Banaszak, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC & Robert S Driscoll,
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fulton's Bid to Junk "Fallon" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Fulton Boiler
Works, Inc., moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
and all other claims asserted against it on the grounds that
plaintiff Richard Fallon failed to identify any product
manufactured, sold, supplied, or installed by Fulton as a source
of his asbestos exposure and that it had no duty to warn Mr.
Fallon of the hazards associated with asbestos manufactured by
third-parties.

In a decision and order dated Aug. 26, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Fulton's
motion, holding that the extent to which Fulton supplied and/or
recommended the use of aftermarket asbestos in connection with its
boilers, including external insulation, has not been resolved, as
such, Judge Heitler concluded that it would be inappropriate to
award Fulton summary judgment.

The case is RICHARD FALLON, Plaintiff, v. FULTON BOILER WORKS,
INC., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190156/13, MOT. SEQ. NO. 004
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/azWDXFfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Awarded $670,000 From WR Grace Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 15, 2008, the claimants involved in extensive
litigation with W.R. Grace & Co. regarding Zonolite Attic
Insulation filed a motion to approve a class settlement and
certification of the ZAI class, which the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware preliminarily granted in January
2009, and finally approved in April 2009.  The ZAI Class
Settlement was contingent on confirmation of a plan that contained
a trust with distribution procedures to effectuate the settlement.

The Debtors' First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization took
effect on Feb. 3, 2014.  A few days after, ZAI Class Counsel filed
a motion seeking a Common Fund Fee Award of 25 percent of the
first two payments in the class settlement, for a total fee in the
approximate amount of $16 million.  Lukins & Annis, P.S., filed a
partial joinder to the Motion of ZAI Class Counsel for a Common
Fund Fee Award, and Counter-Motion to Stay Disbursement of any
Common Fund Fee Award Pending Resolution of All Common Fund Fee
Allocation Disputes.

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the fee award and
reimbursement of ZAI Class Counsel's expenses, but required the
fee award to be held in trust pending further order regarding
L&A's joinder and counter-motion.  In June 2014, the Bankruptcy
Court, through former judge Judith K. Fitzgerald, issued an expert
report recommending that the Court should award L&A 10% of Darrell
Scott's share of the Common Fund Fee, in the amount of $667,500,
and recommended that L&A be denied any reimbursement of its costs.
L&A filed a response to the expert report and asked that the
recommendations be revised to provide for an allocation of at
least 17.03% of Scott's share of the Common Fund Fee Award, or
approximately $1,136,666.

Upon consideration of the Joinder and Counter-Motion, the L&A
Motion, and the Expert Report, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J.
Carey, in an order dated Sept. 3, 2014, adopted the
recommendations in the Expert Report, and awarded L&A a 10% share
of Scott's portion of the Common Fund Fee Award, or approximately
$667,500.

The case is In re: W.R. GRACE & CO., et al., Chapter 11, Debtors,
CASE NO. 01-01139 (KJC) (Bankr. D.Del.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Carey's Decision is available at http://is.gd/0W1ruefrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Denies Bid to Remand "Hammell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Hammell and Linda Hammell brought an action to recover
damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to
asbestos in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County.  The
Asbestos Action was removed to U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  The Plaintiffs now move to remand the
Asbestos Action.  U.S. District Court Mary L. Cooper denied the
Motion insofar as it seeks remand, holding that, viewing the
evidence in light most favorable to the defendants, the evidence
shows at this stage that they have satisfied all necessary
requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1).

The case is ARTHUR HAMMELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-13
(MLC)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Cooper's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/z7QxCRfrom Leagle.com.

ARTHUR HAMMELL and LINDA HAMMELL, Plaintiffs, represented
by ROBERT E. LYTLE, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com -- at SZAFERMAN,
LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC & JOSEPH J. MANDIA, LEVY KONIGSBERG
LLP.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM,
LAWLER & BUBA.

ARVINMERITOR, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by JOSEPH P. LASALA, MCELROY, DEUTSCH,
MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP & DONNA DUBETH GARDINER, MCELROY,
DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP.

BORG WARNER MORSE TEC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by MARC SCOTT GAFFREY, HOAGLAND, LONGO,
OROPOLLO & MORAN, ESQS..

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by WILLIAM ALLEN GOLDSTEIN, COSTELLO, SHEA & GAFFNEY.

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor
in-interest to Joy Manufacturing Company, Cross Defendant,
represented by WILLIAM ALLEN GOLDSTEIN, COSTELLO, SHEA & GAFFNEY.

CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by LINTON W. TURNER, JR., Esq. -- lturner@mayfieldturner.com -- at
CRAWSHAW, MAYFIELD, TURNER, O'MARA, DONNELLY & MCBRIDE.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP &MICHAEL A.
TANENBAUM, SEDGWICK LLP.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH
EDELL PICINI, PC.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Keasbey
& Mattison Co., Cross Defendant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK
PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

CLARK-RELIANCE CORPORATION, solely as an alleged successor to
Jerguson Gage & Valve Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK, Esq. --
jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- at LEADER & BERKON LLP.

CRANE CO., Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, and Defendant,
represented by MICHAEL V. GILBERTI, EPSTEIN & GILBERTI, LLC.

EATON CORPORATION, as successor-in-interest to Cutler-Hammer,
Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by NANCY MCDONALD, Esq. --
nmcdonald@mdmc-law.com -- at McELROY, DEUTSCH & MULVANEY, ESQS.
& ROBERT M. GILMARTIN, JR., Esq. -- rgilmartin@mdmc-law.com -- at
McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.

EATON CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by MICHAEL DAVID JARDIM, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER
& ROBERT M. GILMARTIN, JR., McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter,
LLP.

FMC CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO, Kelley Jasons McGowan
Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by MICHAEL DORON GOLDKLANG, LECLAIR RYAN
& ROBYN GNUDI KALOCSAY, LECLAIRRYAN.

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORP., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP
& MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM &
TOMASZEWSKI, PLLC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP
& MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENLYTE GROUP, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by SANDRA K. STEINMAN, Esq. -- ssteinman@deybllp.com -- at DARGER
ERRANTE YAVITZ & BLAU LLP.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by DIANE M. POMPEI, Lynch Daskal Emery LLP
& IAN STERN MILLICAN, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP.

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

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON LLP.

IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., successor to and f/k/a Delaval Turbine,
Transamerica Delaval and IMO Delaval, Cross Defendant, represented
by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK, LEADER & BERKON LLP.

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by ELIZABETH A. WEILL, ECKERT SEAMANS
CHERIN & MELLOT, LLC & ROBERT J. HAFNER, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by DAWN DEZII, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN & JEANINE D. CLARK, MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN.

MAREMONT CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER &
BUBA.

MAREMONT CORPORATION, individually and as successor to Grizzly,
Cross Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM,
LAWLER & BUBA.

NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
and Cross Claimant, represented by KATHLEEN P. RAMALHO, BREUNINGER
& FELLMAN & SUSAN B. FELLMAN, BREUNINGER & FELLMAN, ESQS..

NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented byELIZABETH A. WEILL, ECKERT SEAMANS
CHERIN & MELLOT, LLC & ROBERT J. HAFNER, ECKERT, SEAMANS, CHERIN &
MELLOTT, LLC.

PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY,
WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

PNEUMO-ABEX, LLC., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by ROY VIOLA, JR., HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG.

PROGRESS LIGHTING, INC., Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by DAVID H. KOCHMAN, HARRIS BEACH, LLP.

ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by DONNA DUBETH GARDINER, MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &
CARPENTER, LLP.

SQUARE-D CO., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO, Kelley Jasons McGowan
Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by RICHARD PATRICK O'LEARY, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

TODD SHIPYARDS CORP., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by ERIC THOM EVANS, WILSON ELSER.

TODD SHIPYARDS CORP., individually and for its Todd Combustion
Division, Cross Defendant, represented by ERIC THOM EVANS, WILSON
ELSER.

TRANE US, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by LISA PASCARELLA,
PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI, PLLC.

UNION CARBIDE CORP., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH
EDELL PICINI, PC.

WARREN PUMPS, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by PAUL
C. JOHNSON, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Bid to Junk "Hockler" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendants Crane Co. and
Stockham Valves & Fitting, Inc., move for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all other claims asserted against
them on the ground that they are not liable for asbestos-
containing insulation installed by third-parties on Crane pumps
and valves.  The Plaintiff's position is that Crane knew or should
have known that asbestos would be integrated into its products for
their intended use and had a duty to warn of the hazards
associated with same.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that the catalogs,
brochures, and submissions presented in opposition to the motion
for summary judgment and in opposition to Crane's prior motions on
the issue plainly demonstrates that it designed and supplied its
products to be used with asbestos-containing gaskets, packing,
insulation, and cement, and, thus, it would be entirely
appropriate for the jury to find that Crane had the burden of
warning workers. . . of the hazards of asbestos exposure.

The case is BRYAN HOCKLER, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190235/13, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 (N.Y. Sup.).
A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/4idXOpfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Set Aside Verdict Partially Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McCloskey sued defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co.,
Inc., and other defendants, claiming that exposure to asbestos
from products manufactured or used by them or used at their
premises caused him to develop and die from mesothelioma.  Upon
his death on Oct. 16, 2013, his wife, Mary Anne McCloskey, was
appointed administratrix of his estate.

A jury found Mario & DiBono liable for McCloskey's exposure to
fireproofing spray applied at the World Trade Center and awarded
damages to his estate and to his wife.  It absolved three other
trial defendants.  Of the 27 other entities listed on the verdict
sheet, it allocated liability to four as follows: (1) Cleaver
Brooks, 10 percent; (2) Dana, 20 percent; (3) Johns-Mansville, 20
percent, and (4) U.S. Minerals, 25 percent, leaving Mario & DiBono
with 25 percent.  The jury also found that Mario & DiBono had
acted recklessly.  It awarded McCloskey $4 million for his pain
and suffering from May 2012 to his death on October 16, 2013, and
his wife $2 million for her loss of consortium.

Mario & DiBono moves for an order setting aside the verdict
rendered against it at trial.  The Plaintiffs oppose.

Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted
Mario & DiBono's motion to set aside the verdict only to the
extent of remanding the matter for a new trial solely on the issue
of damages for loss of consortium unless plaintiffs, within 30
days of service on them of a copy of this order with notice of
entry, stipulate to reduce the award for loss of consortium from
$2 million to $340,000, and to entry of a judgment in accordance
therewith.

The case is MARY ANNE McCLOSKEY, as Executrix for the Estate of
PATRICK McCLOSKEY, and MARY ANNE McCLOSKEY, Individually,
Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants,
DOCKET NO. 190441/12 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Jaffe's Decision, dated Aug. 29, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/HPwWhpfrom Leagle.com.

Alani Golanski, Esq., Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., 700 Broadway, New
York, NY 10003, 212-558-5500, for plaintiffs.

John J. Fanning, Esq. -- jfanning@cullenanddykman.com -- Jeffrey
C. Fegan, Esq. -- jcfegan@cullenanddykman.com -- Ryan J. Byrnes,
Esq. -- rbyrnes@cullenanddykman.com -- at Cullen & Dykman LLP, 44
Wall St., New York, NY 10005, E. Leo Milonas, Esq. --
eleo.milonas@pillsburylaw.com -- David G. Keyko, Esq. --
david.keyko@pillsburylaw.com -- Kerry A. Brennan, Esq. --
kerry.brennan@pillsburylaw.com -- at Pillsbury Winthrop et al.,
1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036, 212-858-1000, for defendant
Mario & DiBono.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate's Suit Allowed to Proceed v. Individuals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted a
motion filed by Michael Maxie, a pro se prisoner, for leave to
proceed against Mark Levenhagen, Michael Scott, Tommie Horne, and
Edward Bruemmer in their individual capacities for monetary
damages for housing him under substandard conditions of
confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment.  In his
complaint, Maxie alleges, among other things, that he was exposed
to excessive amunt of black mold, mildew, and asbestos, which
caused him breathing difficulties.  Judge Simon dismissed the
Indiana Department of Correction and Bruce Lemmon as defendants.

The case is MICHAEL MAXIE, Plaintiff, v. MARK LEVENHAGEN, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1280 PS (N.D. Ind.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Simon's opinion and order dated Aug. 4, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/KbN7iAfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell's Bid to Junk "Murray" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Honeywell
International, Inc., moves for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint as against it on the ground that it did not manufacture,
supply, or specify the use of asbestos components with the
Honeywell valves described by plaintiffs' decedent John Murray as
a source of his exposure.  The defendant moves in the alternative
to preclude the plaintiffs at trial from "supporting its claims
against Honeywell by presenting or relying on evidence of products
not manufactured, supplied, sold, distributed, placed in the
stream of commerce, recommended and/or specified by Honeywell Inc.
related to its control valves. . . ."

In a decision and order dated Aug. 25, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the
defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, holding
that, in this case, there are several unresolved material issues
which preclude summary judgment.  Judge Heitler added that
Honeywell's application to preclude the plaintiffs from
introducing certain evidence at trial is really in the nature of a
motion in limine and should be raised before the trial judge
assigned to the matter.

The case is MARY MURRAY, as Administratrix for the Estate of JOHN
MURRAY, and MARY MURRAY, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190554/12,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 010 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/KReQavfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Super. Court Dismisses "Stillwell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Roderick Stillwell alleges that, due to certain
defendants' wrongful conduct, he was exposed to asbestos and, as a
result of that exposure, developed asbestosis.  The Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss based on application of the Delaware
"Borrowing Statute."  In the Motion, the Defendants contend that
Mr. Stillwell's claims are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  The Defendants argue that Mr. Stillwell's claims are
barred regardless of whether the three-year Maritime statute
applies or whether the Delaware two-year statute of limitations
applies under the "Borrowing Statute."  Mr. Stillwell opposes the
Motion, arguing that the three-year Maritime statute of
limitations applies.  Mr. Stillwell maintains that he filed his
claims within the applicable statute of limitations because he did
not have a definitive medical diagnosis of asbestosis until late
September 2009.  In response, the Defendants point out that in May
of 2009 Mr. Stillwell filed a claim for disability benefits with
the United States Department of Veteran's Administration claiming
that he had been diagnosed with asbestosis.

For the reasons set forth in an opinion dated Aug. 29, 2014, Judge
Eric M. Davis of the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle
County, granted tha motion.

The case is RODERICK STILLWELL, Plaintiff, v. CRANE CO., et al.,
Defendants, C.A. NO. N12C-09-071 ASB (Del. Super.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Davis' Decision is available at http://is.gd/vwUGUa
from Leagle.com.

David T. Crumplar, Esquire, Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware and Ben Vinson, Esquire, Ben A. Vinson, Jr. Attorney,
Tampa Florida Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Loreto P. Rufo, Esquire, Rufo Associates, PA, Hockessin, Delaware
Attorney for Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Dismissed as Defendant in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Wesley F. Sydow and Theresa Sydow filed claims against
certain defendants arising out of Wesley's exposure to asbestos
and a related disease, malignant mesothelioma.  Defendant
Weyerhaeuser Company, the former owner of a door manufacturing
plant where Wesley Sydow 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, in an order dated Aug. 22, 2014,
granted the motion for the reasons set forth in its opinion and
order in Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 14-cv-286 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 22,
2014).  Accordingly, Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss is granted,
and Count III and IV of the plaintiffs' first amended complaint
are dismissed with prejudice and defendant Weyerhaeuser is
dismissed from the action.

The case is WESLEY F. SYDOW and THERESA SYDOW, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-219-
WMC (W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/56c49Pfrom Leagle.com.

Wesley F. Sydow, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd..

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily Zapotocny, Segal
McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c..

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

Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Joshua Lee
Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to File Dispositive Motion in PI Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ted Stewart of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah, in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled ARVA
ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 2:06-CV-741 TS (D. Utah), issued an order denying
Defendants Crane Co. and York International Corporation's motions
for leave to file a dispositive motion, and granting, in part,
defendants Sepco Corporation and Flowserve Corporation's motion in
limine to exclude reference to mesothelioma as an asbestos-related
illness or "asbestos cancer."

A full-text copy of Judge Stewart's decision with respect to Crane
Co. and York International's motions for leave is available at
http://is.gd/WUyEl9from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Stewart's decision with respect to Sepco
and Flowserve's motions is available at http://is.gd/ChMu3Efrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Litigator Wins $18.6MM Verdict in Fibro Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reported that Chris
Panatier, a shareholder in Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett,
P.C., recently won an $18.6 million verdict for his clients,
surviving family members of a tire maker who died after he was
allegedly exposed to asbestos at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
plant.

After winning the verdict, Panatier made a prediction: "Until we
are 40 years past the time when people were still using asbestos,
we are gonna keep seeing mesothelioma."

Asbestos litigation has faded from the news and in large part from
Texas courts since the passage of tort reform in this state a
decade ago.

But Panatier expects to keep plugging away at abestos-related
claims for his plaintiff clients -- and to keep winning, at least
at the trial stage.

In an amended petition filed Aug. 6, 2014, Panatier's clients
alleged that Carl Rogers developed the cancer mesothelioma by
exposure to asbestos while employed by the tire manufacturer. The
petition cited as claims against Goodyear negligence and gross
negligence.

In answer filed on June 28, 2010, the tire company denied the
allegations. David Oliver, a partner in Houston's Vorys, Sater,
Seymour and Pease, who represents Goodyear, did not return a call
for this story.

After a nine-day trial and three hours of deliberations, a jury
issued a verdict that included $2.7 million in noneconomic
damages, $900,000 in economic damages and $15 million in punitive
damages.

For Panatier, the hardest part of the trial was filing a case
knowing that an appellate court could "change the rules after the
case is tried."

In an earlier asbestos case, other clients of Panatier lost when
the Texas Supreme Court overturned a 2006 $13.6 million verdict.

Given that history, it is no surprise that Panatier plans to face
an appellate battle in the Rogers family case, Rogers v. Goodyear
Tire & Rubber.

He even thought of that possibility when he proposed a jury charge
that asked the panel for a unanimous decision about not just the
gross negligence but also the causation question.

"I did it just to be sure," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: R-Building Renovation to Require Abatement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ochoa, writing for Pasadena City College Courier, reported
that Pasadena City College has hired a construction company to
renovate the R-Building's men's restrooms and remove asbestos from
the building.

Executive Director of Facilities and Construction Services Rueben
Smith said that while the building does contain asbestos, when
encapsulated or undisturbed it is not hazardous to those in the
building.

"Asbestos is a scary word but if handled properly some people
don't even know there's asbestos in the building," said Smith.
All the asbestos in the R-Building won't be removed because it
would be too costly, Smith said.

"It would take 100 percent renovation to say it's asbestos free,"
said Smith.

Exposure to asbestos may increase the risk of cancer, other
nonmalignant lung and pleural disorders, lung cancer,
mesothelioma, and other cancers, according to the National Cancer
Institute. It was used for strengthening cements and plastics as
well as insulation.

Smith also said the problem is locating the asbestos, which was
embedded in the building when it was built in the 70s.

"It's an old building so we don't know where the asbestos is
unless we're renovating it," said Smith.

Jack Schulman, Director of Measure P, said the first step in the
abatement process involves determining if the space is hazardous
and then removing all furniture and equipment from the area.

A fully licensed abatement contractor, in this case 1st California
Construction Inc., then comes and sets up a containment area with
samples being continuously monitored during abatement and
afterward to make sure the area was abated correctly. Then all
abated material is removed from the site and disposed of properly.

The R-Building is not the only building on campus that contains
asbestos. An Asbestos Inspection Report conducted by CF
Environmental, Inc. in 2001 lists the C, CC, D, E, HH, U, V, W as
buildings that also contain it.

The cost of renovation is estimated at $520,000 and is part of the
second phase of the R-Building restroom renovation, the first
being remodeling the women's bathroom.

Schulman said the renovation should start some time between the
end of September and the start of October.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Humboldt Health Center
------------------------------------------------------------
Guthrie L'Herogan, writing for The Lumberjack, reported that on
Aug. 7, asbestos was found during a remodel of the Humboldt State
University Student Health Center, in California, by facilities
staff while inspecting a pile of disposed construction materials.

Within the pile were flooring tiles that the staff identified as
material that were not supposed to be removed, but were attached
to flooring material that was replaced during a remodel.

The health center was immediately closed and the materials were
sampled for the presence of asbestos. Students were not informed
about the discovery.

"I did not know about it," sophomore Archer Harmony said.

"Generally asbestos is bad news."

The last time asbestos was found on campus was at Science Building
A, and it was temporarily cordoned off. In the summer of 2010,
concerns were raised about the material content of desks when they
were sanded to install new computer ports. The closure of Science
Building A delayed summer classes while the building was
investigated.

The integrity and content of the asbestos within the tiles in the
health center were tested by local scientific consulting agency,
SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists, who have state certified
site surveillance technicians for asbestos testing.

Engineers found that the floor tiles were attached with a mastic
glue which contained 2 percent asbestos content.  Since no fiber
was found in the air, Risk Management and Safety Services deemed
that no further remediation was required and the building was safe
for re-entry.  The HSU staff was later notified through email from
Risk Management and Safety Services.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber that until the 1980's was commonly
used in construction, manufacturing and shipbuilding. While
relatively harmless in a solid state, loose or airborne asbestos
fiber can enter into the lungs and cause a number of respiratory
related diseases and cancers including mesothelioma.

Federal asbestos exposure limits were not in place until 1972. It
is still used in some products such as automatic transmission
components and disc brakes. It was so prevalent in construction
materials the various regulatory agencies classify buildings with
"thermal system insulation and surfacing material constructed no
later than 1980" as presumed asbestos containing material sites.

According to Asbestos.com, a subset website of the Mesothelioma
Center, California is the number one state in terms of asbestos
related illness (asbestosis and mesothelioma.)

Cases of asbestos in colleges and universities are regulated by
the Occupational Safety Health Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Asbestos National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, along with state
agencies.

Joe Chiou, Associate Safety Engineer for Cal/OSHA Consultation
said "Cal/OSHA regulation only has jurisdiction over places with
an employer and employee relationship."

Chiou said that the other school regulations, specifically the
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, require schools to notify
parents of asbestos-related activity taking place within the
school, but AHERA regulation only cover K-12 facilities.

Because universities and colleges do not fit within the K-12 range
and students are not school employees, they fall into a grey area
that are not required to be notified.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Mulch Testing Ongoing in Bundaberg
---------------------------------------------------------
News Mail reported that investigations into mulch contamination
are continuing at the waste facilities in Bundaberg Regional
Council, Australia, following the discovery of asbestos in its
University Drive mulch supply.

Waste and Recycling spokesman Vince Habermann said the council had
received "some favourable news" from the preliminary results of
testing carried out in its mulch stockpile.

"Initial test results from an independent lab have thus far
confirmed that it was a very limited contamination of low-grade,
bonded asbestos," Cr Habermann said.

"Tests are continuing along with a review of our green waste
collection service.

"However, a 100% guarantee that contamination will not occur in
our green waste mulch would be impossible without the support of
residents, who need to be prudent about how they dispose of
dangerous or hazardous waste."

He said the council was removing mulch purchased during the
possible contamination period from 22 properties.

"Due to the number of residents who had concerns about mulch
purchased during this time, (the) council has resolved to remove
it all rather than carry out lab testing on each property, which
can be an expensive and long process.

"Removing it will not only be more cost effective, but we will
immediately be able to allay community concern."

Mulch sales at council's waste facilities remain closed until
further notice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Dies Due to Exposure to Fibro
----------------------------------------------------
Liz Day, writing for Wales Online, reported that a former factory
worker in Wales died as a result of exposure to asbestos, an
inquest has heard.

Frances Hamilton died in Barry on May 31 after being diagnosed
with malignant mesothelioma -- a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos.

Cardiff Coroner's Court heard that Mrs Hamilton had been diagnosed
with the disease in July last year, after visiting her GP with a
cough.  She was later referred to a chest clinic at University
Hospital Llandough. She died in Barry on May 31, aged 75.

The inquest was told that in a claim she made for compensation
before her death, Mrs Hamilton said she started helping her mother
in a factory called Wrights Insulations in Glasgow at the age of
15.  She claimed she was not provided with overalls and although
she was given a paper mask, it was not very effective.

According to her statement, her hands and arms were regularly
covered in asbestos fibres which made her itch.

Coroner Andrew Barkley recorded a verdict of industrial disease
and recorded the cause of death as bronchial pneumonia, with a
secondary cause of malignant mesothelioma caused by asbestos
exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Salinus Nursing Home, Contractors Settle Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Ceballos, writing for Monterey Herald, reported that a lawsuit
settlement reached between a Salinas nursing home and contractors
for violating asbestos-related laws netted $295,000 in civil
penalties and costs, the Monterey County District Attorney's
Office said.

The settlement is in connection to a violation made by the owners
and operators of Windsor Gardens in Salinas in 2012. Windsor
Gardens and the S&F Management Company failed to conduct an
asbestos survey when they made some renovations to the facility.

The renovations were made in the wallboard of patients' rooms and
after the work was done, a coating with more than 1 percent in
asbestos was left, which exceeded the asbestos-related
regulations.  Exposure to asbestos fibers is known to increase a
person's risks to lung cancer and respiratory diseases.

The owners of the nursing home and S&F, which oversaw the
renovation, settled for a total of $225,000 with the District
Attorney's Environmental Protection Unit. The settlement covered
civil penalties, costs and a supplemental project for the CAL-
EPA's Environmental Training account.

The contractors are part of the settlement. The Stahl Companies,
Inc., which was hired to do the work at the nursing home, settled
for $70,435 in civil penalties and costs. The workers were
responsible for using wet methods or another safe method, but when
they didn't do so, they were unable to minimize the asbestos
exposure emitted during the renovation project.

This is the second time a nursing home in Monterey County managed
by S&F has been involved in an asbestos lawsuit settlement. In
2011, Windsor Monterey Care Center and S&F settled for $110,000 in
civil penalties and costs for violations committed during a 2009
renovation project at the Windsor facility located in Monterey.

The California Hazardous waste law requires a thorough survey to
be conducted after work is done to indicate if wallboard or
structures contain asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Closes Cambridge Council Chambers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Dean, writing for The Democrat Star, reported that the
chambers of the Dorchester County Council, in South Carolina, have
been closed to the public after asbestos was detected in the
ductwork and crawl space.

The Dorchester County Council is allowing the Cambridge City
Council to use its nearby meeting room, where city meetings are
scheduled through Dec. 8, although some dates are still being
determined for earlier meetings because the county's room is
already booked.

The asbestos was found in the ductwork and crawl space of the city
council meeting room at 305 Gay St., a circa 1935 building that
originally served as Cambridge's public library. Asbestos was not
found in the air of the meeting room.

Cambridge Public Works Director Oden C. Wheeler said asbestos was
discovered in the city council meeting chambers when that building
was included in a survey of the old city hall and firehouse at 307
Gay St. The survey is part of planning for renovation of the old
city hall, expanding into the former firehouse portion of the
building.

The survey of 305 Gay St. found "a lot of friable material" in the
crawl space under city council chambers, Wheeler said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines friable asbestos
"as those materials containing more than 1 percent asbestos which
could be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand
pressure when dry."

Asbestos was probably introduced to the crawl space when the
building was built in 1935 for use as the city's public library.
Cambridge Mayor Victoria Jackson-Stanley read the report of the
survey for asbestos for city council chambers. It found asbestos
particles in the ducts of the air-handling system installed there
in the mid-1990s. Wheeler said the heat pumps which now serve the
building were installed in the area of the old boiler, which was
probably removed in 1974 when the building was renovated for its
current use.

Radiators that had been used to heat the building were probably
also removed in 1974, when through the wall units were installed
to heat and cool the building. When these proved inefficient, the
central heating and cooling system was installed, Wheeler said.
Over time, the air-handling system has apparently blown asbestos
particles into the ductwork. But there has been no asbestos found
in any of at least five air samples taken in council chambers,
Wheeler said after the meeting, explaining that air-conditioning
in the building had been turned on full blast for 24 hours prior
to the air testing.

The next step is to develop a scope of work for the asbestos
abatement. Options such as treating or sealing areas of asbestos
contamination may be considered as the work plan is developed.
Wheeler would like to see the job completed in around 60 days but
said it is too early to predict how long it will take to carry out
asbestos abatement.

Test results of the more extensive survey of 307 Gay St. have yet
to be returned but Wheeler is optimistic about at least one
portion of that building, the area where Rescue Fire Company
continues to set up its Christmas Train Garden each holiday
season. He said that portion of the building does not connect to
the heating system for the rest of the building. So there should
be no problems for the holiday tradition continuing this year.
The city council is currently using the meeting room of the
Dorchester County Council at 110 Court Lane for its meetings.

The city council initially agreed to a Sept. 17 meeting, to
replace its Sept. 22 meeting because another event was scheduled
that evening in the county meeting room, but the council is now
considering Sept. 30 as its meeting date.

An Oct. 6 work session on hiring a city manager will be held at an
alternate location, yet to be determined.

The city council previously had moved its Oct. 13 meeting to Oct.
14 because of the Columbus Day holiday. But the county council is
meeting Oct. 14. The city council will meet Oct. 13 despite the
holiday.

City meetings currently are scheduled Oct. 27, Nov. 10, Nov. 24
and Dec. 8 in the county meeting room.

Asbestos abatement of the city council chambers could be completed
sooner and some of the later scheduled meetings could be held
there.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rottnest Island Fibro Risk Confirmed
-----------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that easily disturbed
asbestos poses a high risk on the West Australian holiday
destination Rottnest Island, the state government says.  The blue
material was reported by a visitor after he discovered it behind
units in the main settlement near the visitor centre.

The area was temporarily closed off and cleaned as a precaution,
and all of the material was removed from the island and sent for
testing.  In parliament, Liberal MP Alyssa Hayden confirmed there
was high-risk asbestos on the island that had been identified as
easily disturbed.  She said the sites would be remediated.

Ms Hayden said the Rottnest Island Authority conducted annual
external audits to update its asbestos risk register, with the
most recent inspection done in August last year.

"The Rottnest Island Authority has a continual process of asbestos
risk reduction that has substantially reduced the asbestos risk
since the first report was compiled in 2002," she said.

About 25,000sqm of asbestos roofing on Rottnest Island was
replaced with Colorbond between 2005 and 2006.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australia Health Professionals Trained on Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Boddy, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that rates
of asbestos-related diseases in Canberra are predicted to rise in
the next six years.

Australia has one of the world's highest rates of malignant
pleural mesothelioma, a common asbestos-related lung disease,
according to Judy Rafferty, a nurse educator for asbestos-related
diseases with Lung Foundation Australia.

"We mined it, manufactured it, imported it and, after the Second
World War, most of our houses were built with asbestos and we now
find ourselves as probably one of the biggest house renovators in
the world," she said.

"The National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Awareness in Australia
has identified that figures for asbestos-related diseases are
about to rise."

Ms Rafferty said rates of asbestos-related illness in the ACT were
similar to the rest of Australia.

"At this stage, we see about 770 patients diagnosed with pleural
mesothelioma per year in this country and what we're anticipating
is that in the next decade, we're about to see a rise," she said.

"The latency period for mesothelioma is between 20 and 50 years
and so it's that timeframe -- post-war years to now.

"The sixties, the seventies, we're starting to see that group of
people come through with asbestos-related diseases."

The warning comes ahead of a workshop for health professionals in
Canberra on September 19, about diagnosis, treatment and
management of those living with an asbestos-related lung disease,
including malignant pleural mesothelioma.  The workshop will be
hosted by Lung Foundation Australia and the Asbestos and Safety
Eradication Agency and is part of a national program raising
awareness about potential asbestos risks, where it might remain in
the environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in 2nd Mount Maresa Bldg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Wrobleski, writing for siLive.com, reported that with asbestos
problems spreading at the Mount Manresa site, the New York city
Department of Environmental Protection said it will investigate
the Staten Island engineer who only months ago signed off on
paperwork saying that six historic buildings slated for demolition
at the site were free of asbestos.

It's not the first time that the engineer, Gaspare Santoro, has
run afoul of a regulatory agency. He was placed on two years'
probation in a 2004 disciplinary action, according to records.

The Buildings Department said that DEP inspectors had found
asbestos in two of the buildings at Mount Manresa so far. The
presence of airborne asbestos in the first of those buildings was
reported over the weekend.

A stop-work order has been issued for the whole site, and DEP
inspectors are now testing all the structures for asbestos. DEP
has said that that the air was safe.

It is not clear which buildings were found to contain asbestos, or
when results from the asbestos tests would be complete.

The DEP said Santoro filed paperwork in April saying that each of
six buildings on the Manresa site, which are slated for demolition
to make way for a townhouse development by Savo Brothers, were
"free of asbestos containing material."

The DEP told the Advance that it's possible that Santoro, hired by
the Savos to do the asbestos inspection, could be hit with
violations now that asbestos has been found, and that if enough
violations are leveled, his DEP asbestos certification could be
terminated.

"There will be a full investigation of the gentleman that signed
off on the asbestos," a DEP spokesman said.

The agency said DEP inspectors are on-site daily. Asbestos
abatement work is currently being done on one building by a firm
called The Asbestos Contractor Inc. The DEP said the Easy Inc.
environmental consulting firm is serving as the air monitor.

When testing is complete, new paperwork certifying that the
buildings are asbestos-free will have to be filed before work
can begin again at the site.

"They put the public at risk," said Barbara Sanchez of the
Committee to Save Mount Manresa, "and we're still trying to get
the whole story."

She said, "What's shocking is that any demolition was allowed to
occur. Protections for the people and the workers were not in
place."

Santoro and the Savos did not return requests for comment. The
Savos paid the Society of Jesus $15 million for the property and
plan to build 250 townhouses on the site.

Staten Island Borough President James Oddo had recently penned a
letter to DEP Commissioner Emily Lloyd asking the agency to
investigate community concerns about any potential airborne
asbestos.

The letter was co-signed by City Councilwoman Debi Rose (D-North
Shore), Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis (R-East Shore/Brooklyn),
and state Sens. Diane Savino (D-North Shore/Brooklyn) and Andrew
Lanza (R-Staten Island).

"My office is in constant contact with the city's Department of
Environmental Protection to ensure that any demolition that may
occur does not expose residents to any environmental risks," said
Ms. Rose.

Ms. Rose said she planned to meet with Mount Manresa committee
members and Community Board 1 representatives to update them on
the status of the project.

"With all we've been through with his property, it really doesn't
surprise me that a ball like this could be dropped," said Ms.
Malliotakis. "It's very concerning."

In 2004, the state Department of Education, the licensing body for
professionals such as architects and engineers, cited Santoro for
"grossly negligent failure to comply with the substantial
provision of local laws governing the practice of architecture,"
according to Advance records.

The probation ended in December 2007.

Speaking to the Advance in 2007, Santoro said the sanction was the
result of two incidents, one involving a builder who was cited for
failed retaining walls at homes built on Pouch Terrace in
Rosebank.

Those violations were later cured.

Santoro said he agreed to the terms of the settlement because it
allowed him to keep his license and continue practicing. He paid a
$5,000 fine and took some continuing education courses, according
to Advance records.

Santoro also designed, and signed off on the certification of, a
retaining wall behind the home of the late attorney John D'Amato
in Dongan Hills that collapsed in 2007, according to Advance
records.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seymour Demolition Hits Snag Over Toxic Dust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Otero, writing for Republican-American, reported that after
six years, residents and town officials, in Seymour, Connecticut,
will need to wait a little longer to see the vacant Seymour Lumber
& Supply Co. building on Bank Street come down.

The town had planned to move forward with demolishing the building
within October.  However, since the building contains lead paint
and asbestos the demolition requires specific training, which the
contractor hired for the job did not have.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Litigation Still Active & Still Evolving
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported
that even decades after the end of most U.S. production of
asbestos, litigation against the companies that made it or put it
in their products is alive and well in the state courts of New
Jersey.

The number of pending cases is far below the thousands that once
clogged court calendars and drove a string of companies --
including Johns-Manville, Celotex, W.R. Grace and GAF Corp. --
into bankruptcy. But the defendants now being sued are a different
and broader assortment of companies, including makers of talc,
fertilizer and even cigarettes, raising new questions concerning
exposure and causation, according to lawyers.

Attorneys also said the cases are moving more swiftly now under
the direction of Judge Ana Viscomi, who recently took over as head
of the asbestos mass tort docket centralized in Middlesex County.
John Garde of McCarter & English in Newark, who has been defending
asbestos suits for almost 30 years, estimated there were once
9,000 in Middlesex County alone, with smaller numbers in places
like Camden and Atlantic Counties.

The oldest asbestos statistics available from the judiciary show
3,037 cases at the end of 1999, dropping to 2,882 by December
2000. Between June 2005 and June 2006, the number fell below
1,000, and it continued to decline to a low of 331 at the end of
June 2013, rebounding slightly to 382 this past June.

The removal of cases to federal court also reduced the number in
state court. Judiciary spokeswoman Tamara Kendig said 20 were
removed between July 2013 and June 2014.

As of Sept. 5, there were roughly 370 asbestos lawsuits pending in
New Jersey state courts.  But both plaintiffs and defense lawyers
said that figure belies what is still a very active area of
litigation.

"The docket in terms of raw number is way down but the level of
complexity of the cases has gone up," said defense lawyer Marc
Gaffrey, of Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas in New Brunswick,
N.J.

Gaffrey said that during the 26 years he's been handling asbestos
matters, the area "has changed an awful lot and seems to keep
reinventing itself."

Laurence Nassif, of plaintiffs firm Seeger Weiss in New York, said
people are still being exposed through such items as old
automotive parts and gaskets but pegged secondary exposure and
talc as "emerging areas" in asbestos litigation.  Secondary
exposure cases tend to involve family members of people who worked
in places like factories and shipyards, got asbestos on themselves
at work and carried it home on their clothing, a type of indirect
claim recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the 2006 case
Olivo v. Owens-Illinois.

Talc, like asbestos, is mined and is sometimes contaminated with
asbestos.  Cases involving talc, which has a variety of uses, are
not exactly new but lawyers said they are on the upswing.

Last November, the New York firm of Levy Konigsberg won a $1.6
million mesothelioma verdict against a distributor of cosmetic
talc contaminated with asbestos.  The firm's Leah Kagan said it
was the first cosmetic talc verdict in New Jersey.

More talc trials are on the horizon.  The first talc case set for
trial before Viscomi, in November, would also be the first in the
U.S. against Colgate-Palmolive, maker of Cashmere Bouquet talcum
powder. Procter & Gamble, maker of the Desert Flower, Friendship
Garden and Old Spice Brands, is also a defendant.

There also cigarette cases in the pipeline.

The cases, which are few in number, involve Lorillard's Kent
brand. For a few years during the 1950s, the cigarettes' filters
contained asbestos.

Another recent trend in asbestos litigation is an uptick in cases
involving lung cancer, as opposed to mesothelioma, according David
Katzenstein of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott in Newark.  While
plaintiffs who smoked as well as alleging asbestos exposure have a
tougher time showing causation than those with mesothelioma,
Gaffrey said they're arguing that the synergistic interaction of
asbestos and tobacco heightened the cancer risk.

Mesothelioma cases are not extinct, however.  Though few products
with asbestos are now being made, people continue to get sick and
die and lawsuits keep getting filed because of the long latency
period between initial exposure and a diagnosable illness, lawyers
said.  It generally takes 20 to 50 years from when asbestos fibers
are inhaled until a diagnosis of mesothelioma, a deadly disease
with few other known causes.  Most early cases involved living
plaintiffs with scarred lungs in contrast to the claims involving
mesothelioma and cancer and already deceased or dying plaintiffs
that predominate these days, said plaintiffs lawyer Christopher
Placitella, of Placitella Cohen & Roth in Red Bank, N.J.

Asbestos was once widely used for insulation -- wrapped around
heating pipes, boilers, electrical wires and other objects -- and
the first wave of litigation targeted insulation manufacturers
like Johns-Manville, once the world's largest producer of asbestos
products, with its biggest U.S. plant located in Manville, N.J.
Plaintiffs have traditionally been heavily blue collar: factory
workers, plumbers, mechanics, electricians and others who worked
with asbestos products or in asbestos-contaminated environments.
Asbestos litigation was centralized as a mass tort in Middlesex
County in 2008. Since then, three judges have been in charge: Ann
McCormick, from 2008 to 2012, Vincent LeBlon, starting in August
2012, and now Viscomi, who took over the case load as of March 1.
Viscomi was a family judge when she was tapped to head up the mass
tort docket and was an administrative law judge before becoming a
Superior Court judge in 2012. But she also had five years of
experience as a special master for asbestos cases in Middlesex
County from 1996 to 2001, and worked as toxic-tort litigation
coordinator in Middlesex County from 1989 to 1990.

Placitella praised her "deep knowledge and understanding" of
asbestos litigation, encompassing its history, medical aspects and
the parties.  Lawyers said she is moving litigation along at a
faster clip, deciding motions from the bench.  She is also
scheduling them for specific times rather than all at once so
lawyers waste less time waiting around, said Arnold Lakind, of
plaintiffs firm Szaferman Lakind Blumstein & Balder in
Lawrenceville, N.J.

Viscomi started jury selection in her first trial on Sept. 11 in
Morrone v. American Biltrite Corp., where the plaintiff claims
that an asbestos-containing drywall component used in her home
caused her mesothelioma, and lawyers said they are eager to see
how she handles it.

The case, like many asbestos matters, originally had multiple
defendants -- including General Electric, Goodrich, Goodyear,
Honeywell, Ingersoll Rand, ITT and Sears Roebuck -- but the other
defendants were either dismissed or settled out.

Kendig noted that among cases that are ready for trial, those like
Morrone -- with "living malignancies" or victims who are still
alive -- are prioritized for trial over cases where an estate is
suing on behalf of the deceased. The age of the case is also a
factor.

In what lawyers said was a welcome move, Viscomi has revived the
Asbestos Advisory Council, which had lapsed in recent years. With
four plaintiffs lawyers and eight defense lawyers, it is a bit
larger than in the past to reflect the more diverse nature of the
defendants.

On the plaintiffs side are Placitella, as well as lawyers from
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, N.J., Levy Konigsberg and
Weitzman & Luxenberg in Cherry Hill, N.J.

Garde and Gaffrey are among the defense members, along with
lawyers from Verona, N.J.'s O'Toole Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu,
Florham Park, N.J.'s McGivney & Kluger, Fairfield, N.J.'s Caruso
Smith Picini, Merchantville, N.J.'s Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt,
Iselin, N.J.'s Kent & McBride and Morristown, N.J.'s McElroy
Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter.

Like her predecessors, Viscomi is the sole asbestos judge but has
the assistance of a special master, Agatha Dzikiewicz, who
oversees discovery and case management, holds settlement
conferences and creates the trial list.

Asbestos claims are seldom tried. The vast majority settle
quietly, or are thrown out or withdrawn. The known verdicts,
however, are often in the multimillion dollar realm.

The highest reported asbestos award in New Jersey was $30.3
million in 2008 to the family of advertising executive Mark
Buttitta, who died of mesothelioma in 2002. He claimed secondhand
asbestos exposure from the clothing of his father, who worked at a
General Motors plant, and first-hand exposure from his summer job
at the same plant during college. General Motors settled out of
the case on confidential terms before trial, as did two other
defendants during trial, leaving only Borg-Warner Corp., and
Asbestos Corp., by the time of the verdict, which was upheld in
2010.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Gov't Delays Mr. Fluffy Clean-up Budget
------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Smith and Clarissa Thorpe, writing for Yahoo!7 News, reported
that major infrastructure projects planned for Canberra will go on
the backburner as the ACT Government tries to find money to fund a
Mr Fluffy asbestos clean up.

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher has warned several commitments
announced in the ACT budget will have to be wound back as the
Government looks to spend $300 million or more on a scheme to
possibly buyback, remediate or demolish affected properties.

More than 1,000 homes across the ACT had loose-fill asbestos
pumped into the roof spaces as insulation in the 1960s and 1970s.

A Commonwealth-funded clean up program in the 1980s and 1990s
attempted to clear the houses of the potentially deadly fibres.

Breathing in asbestos fibres can cause the lung cancer,
mesothelioma.  However remnant fibres have been found in the wall
spaces and sub floors of some former Mr Fluffy properties.

More than 30 homeowners have already been forced to leave their
properties after tiny fibres were detected in wardrobes and living
areas.

ACT Budget under pressure to pay for predicted Mr Fluffy costs

The exact details of a clean up has not been announced, but Ms
Gallagher said it may include buybacks of property and
remediation.

Ms Gallagher warned large parts of the $2.5 billion infrastructure
package announced in the last ACT budget would be significantly
delayed, including the City to Lake development and a new national
Convention Centre.

"It is hard to predict but to the order of around $300 million,
probably more [is needed].

"And that has required the Cabinet to go back and have a think
about some, particularly about infrastructure, but also some of
our other commitments to make sure we can afford this."

However Ms Gallagher said funding would still be set aside for the
territory's controversial light rail project linking Gungahlin and
Civic.  She said money for hospitals, schools and public transport
would remain untouched.

"In relation to public transport, it's not really a discretionary
item," she said.

"I know people have views on whether Capital Metro [light rail
project] is the right mechanism for infrastructure and public
transport.

"But there is no 'do nothing' approach on public transport. The
city is growing, congestion is growing, and we need to address
that."

Light rail should not be a funding priority: ACT Opposition

The ACT Opposition wants the light rail project to be shelved to
ensure there is enough funding to support affected Mr Fluffy
owners.

Canberra Liberals leader Jeremy Hanson said it needs to be
resolved urgently.

"While we have these other priorities, we have hospitals which are
bursting at the seams and are unsafe, while we have schools that
are full and teachers under pressure," he said.

"It is a nonsense then to continue on with light rail and shelve
every other priority.

"The $800 million for light rail is not on our priority list."

Master Builders Association executive director John Miller said
the budget changes would mean the commercial building sector will
suffer.

"Perhaps given the controversy around light rail and given we have
a public transport system, but we don't have a convention centre
and we don't have a few of the other things we were looking for,"
he said.

"Maybe this [light rail] might have been the project to have been
shelved, but that is up to Government."

Mr Miller acknowledged the loss of major infrastructure projects
to fund Mr Fluffy remediation was likely to be a double-edged
sword for the building industry.

"One way some people [in residential building] are going to do
well out of it, and another way some people are going to find it a
little bit more difficult," he said.

"Unless the private sector can pick up some of the slack in
ensuing years for the commercial projects."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Bans May Take Decades to Cut Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Surviving Mesothelioma reported that Italy's 1992 asbestos ban is
expected to cause a significant decrease in the number of
mesothelioma cases in the country -- but not for at least another
decade. Researchers in the Occupational Health Unit of the Local
health Authority of Padua reached that conclusion after studying
1,600 Italian pleural mesothelioma cases over a 23 year period.

The goal of the new study was to compare one region's incidence of
mesothelioma with known asbestos exposures in the area and see how
lack of exposure affects the rates over time. The study focused
only on confirmed cases of malignant pleural mesothelioma that
occurred in the Veneto Region of Italy between 1987 and 2010.

Unfortunately, the researchers observed a steady increase in the
number of mesothelioma cases during that period. The study
subjects at greatest risk for the disease were those born between
1940 and 1945. This is because mesothelioma has one of the longest
latency periods of any cancer, taking between 10 and 50 years to
cause symptoms. As a result, many people exposed to asbestos as
early as 1940 would have just been starting to develop symptoms
around 1987.

Fortunately, the findings also indicated that the incidence of
mesothelioma in this historically asbestos-rich area have probably
already peaked. "Future projections indicate that the trend will
decrease after the incidence peak of 2010," writes primary author
Paolo Girardi in a report in Cancer Epidemiology.

Even so, an estimated 1,234 Italian men are still expected to
develop mesothelioma between 2011 and 2026. Among women, the rate
is expected to remain stable or slowly decline. The research team
concludes that, more than 20 years after asbestos was banned in
Italy, the mesothelioma-reducing effects are not yet observable.

Although 55 countries of the European Union have enacted bans on
asbestos because of its link to mesothelioma, the US has failed to
do so. Nonetheless, incidence of mesothelioma in the U.S. is
slowly declining because of strict regulations on the use and
handling of asbestos. The new Italian study suggests that, if a
ban is instituted in the U.S., its full effects will likely not be
seen for at least 2 decades.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Answers Demanded After Worker Exposed to Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halesowen News reported that the family of a former bricklaywer in
Halesowen, England, who died of mesothelioma want answers about
where he was exposed to the deadly dust.

Leslie Siviter, aged 82, was diagnosed with the asbestos-related
cancer in August 2011, after suffering from breathing
difficulties.  He died in November 2011.

Throughout his career, Mr Siviter, originally from Quarry Bank,
worked for several companies across the West Midlands from 1961 to
the early 1990s.  These included Frank Gadd, A & J Mucklow & Co
Limited, Bruce Tipper Ltd and Dudley Council.

His family has now instructed law experts at Irwin Mitchell to
help find answers as to when and where he was exposed.  Together
they are appealing to his ex- colleagues to get in touch as they
may hold vital evidence about the presence of asbestos and working
conditions throughout his work history.

Iain Shoolbred, who is representing the family, said: "Leslie's
family are devastated to have lost him in such tragic
circumstances and understandably they want answers as to how this
could happen and whether more could have been done to protect him
from being exposed to asbestos.

"We're keen to speak to anybody who worked with Mr Siviter during
his career as a bricklayer at any of the companies listed as we
believe they may hold vital evidence about the presence of
asbestos and the working conditions he faced."

He added: "Mesothelioma is an industrial illness for which there
is sadly no cure. Knowledge of the risks associated with asbestos
exposure were well known during the time that Mr Siviter worked
with it, yet many workers were not warned of the dangers.

"His family want to know why more wasn't done at the time to
protect him whilst he was at work against the deadly asbestos dust
so we can get some justice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Orange, NSW House
-------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for Central Western Daily, reported that
New South Wales authorities have expanded their asbestos search
after the discovery of a house in Orange confirmed to have
contained loose-fill asbestos insulation before it was demolished
two or three years ago.

To date, 199 homeowners in NSW have registered to have their
insulation tested, with testing to begin in about a week. The
requests are showing a pattern of concern around Wagga Wagga,
where 41 homes are down for testing, with homeowners in Yass,
Queanbeyan, Ku-ring-gai on Sydney's north shore, and Cooma also
coming forward in significant numbers.

The Orange house is the first confirmed to have contained the
asbestos insulation outside Canberra, other than the 14 that have
been known about for some years, most in Queanbeyan.  It widens
the area in which loose-fill asbestos insulation was used in NSW,
and gives weight to suggestions that companies other than
Canberra's Mr Fluffy might have installed the dangerous
insulation.

Orange is now included in the list of search areas, with Albury,
Crookwell and Lithgow also added to the mix, bringing to 20 the
number of local government areas in NSW offered testing.

The scheme is voluntary, with homeowners invited to come forward
and request the tests.

Heads of Asbestos Co-ordinating Authorities chairman Peter Dunphy
said the Crookwell area had been added after a request from the
local council, and Albury and Lithgow because of newspaper reports
and advertisements from the time, the 1960s and 1970s, suggesting
an asbestos insulation installer had been active in the areas.

Authorities still expected only a small proportion of tested homes
would prove to contain asbestos insulation, with other kinds of
loose-fill insulation also in homes and difficult to distinguish
from asbestos on sight, he said.

NSW is still working out what to do with houses identified. Given
the results of Canberra's clean-up, it is not considering removing
the material, but is looking at demolition or managing the
insulation in place. It is testing homes to check asbestos levels
in living areas.

Councils are wrestling with questions such as ensuring homes
containing asbestos are not sold without disclosure and not
renovated without safety precautions, and with who is responsible
for contamination and clean-up in the event of fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Gets in Tenn. Board
----------------------------------------------------
Christy Armstrong, writing for Cleveland Daily Banner, reported
that the number of teacher contracts allocated to each school and
a plumbing problem at Bradley Central High School, in Tennessee,
were the main topics of discussion during the formal session of
the Bradley County Board of Education.

Supervisor of Secondary Education Dan Glasscock spoke to the board
about the proposed number of contracts schools have available to
pay teachers for any extended learning programs.

Those extended contracts are distributed to schools based on their
student populations, and schools have the option to "bank" the
contracts for later, Glasscock said. Those can be used whole or
even halved or quartered.

The extra contracts provide an "emergency fund" for things like
addressing at-risk populations of students.

Glasscock said $75,820 in state funding was allocated this year
after state legislation required the money for extended contracts
be separated from Career Ladder funding for teacher salaries.

"That limits the number of contracts we can offer to teachers in
our schools," Glasscock said.

This year, about 32 contracts have been budgeted with $75,820 and
about an additional four when taking into account $108,000 in
money carried over from last year, he said.

The contracts mentioned did not include the "banked" ones, he
explained. However, about $14,000 has already been given to the
Bradley County Virtual School because there was an additional
staffing need there.

Board member Dianna Calfee said she was concerned about the number
of contracts given the two schools that have most recently been
designated Focus Schools by the Tennessee Department of Education,
Taylor Elementary School and Park View Elementary Schools.  Calfee
said she wanted to make sure the schools needing the most
resources for helping students perform better are able to get
them.

"My concern is our Focus schools," Calfee said.  "These schools
have dire needs for remediation. . . .  They need extra funds
because of the situation they are in."  She said she would like to
see each Focus school receive three contracts to be used for
improvements, as at least one of them has less than one whole
contract available.

Director of Schools Johnny McDaniel said those two schools have
already been allocated federal Title I funding that can be used
for things like instructional assistants and after-school programs
to help, if needed.  However, he said after-school programs might
have limited impact because of students' transportation-related
concerns.

Calfee reiterated her desire to "start prioritizing" which schools
need the most resources. She proposed a motion to have Glasscock
compile a report on how many contracts each school has and how
they are being used to be presented at the board's October
meeting. Her measure passed.

McDaniel then explained how restrooms near the cafeteria at
Bradley Central have been unavailable to students because of
rusted metal pipes so bad the toilets cannot flush.  Those pipes
need to be replaced. However, McDaniel said the areas surrounding
the pipes contain asbestos and would require abatement.

Terry Painter, the school system's maintenance supervisor, said
the costs of asbestos abatement and air quality testing would
carry the bulk of the project's costs.

Board member Nicholas Lillios asked if the asbestos-contaminated
tile could be removed all at once instead of having to remove tile
piece-by-piece, which would require more extensive abatement.
Painter said that would not be any cheaper because it would
require the use of heavy machinery which likely could not fit
through the doors of the school anyway.

The project is also set to require teachers and students moving
out from two art classrooms near the restrooms. Painter said the
project would take about a month to complete, which meant some
work would have to be done during the school year.

"I just can't do it over Christmas break," Painter said.

The board gave its approval for the project to begin soon.

In other business, the board also voted to spend more than $1,000
a year on an online content management service.

Turner proposed using the "eMeetings" service offered by the
Tennessee School Boards Association.  He said the system would
allow the board to "go paperless."  Instead of printing copies of
agendas and other documentation for board members each meeting,
they would use electronic devices to access them.  He added that
all the same documentation can more easily be put online for
members of the public to access during and outside of meetings.

"It's a move toward transparency," Turner said.

The service costs a school board $2,000 for the first year and
$1,500 for each year after that. Turner said the first year costs
more because it includes in-person training on how the system
works.

With the board's budget for the year already finalized,
Critchfield asked from where the money was supposed to come.

Turner suggested taking funds from a budget line item for "other
contracted services, " while Beaty suggested letting Rick Smith,
the school system's business manager, determine which line item
could see a reduction.

The board voted unanimously to purchase access to the service.

The Cleveland City Board of Education is already a current
subscriber of the service, according to the TSBA's website.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Known Fibro Insulation Threat in NW
-------------------------------------------------------
Kerrin Thomas, writing for ABC News, reported that the Heads of
Asbestos Coordination Working Group, in New South Wales, said it
will investigate any concerns regarding the use of loose fill
asbestos insulation, but there have been no reports of such
material being used in homes in the NSW north west.

Chair Peter Dunphy said Tamworth Regional Council recently
approached the Group seeking to find out if such material could've
been used in the area.  He said the Group is coordinating free
asbestos testing of homes in more than a dozen New South Wales
Councils, mostly in the state's south.

Mr Dunphy said the Group will meet with Council to seek further
relevant information.

"[We'll] give them some further background information but also
see what further information we could get from them that might
help us with our inquiries," he said.

"What we've been doing is we'll include Councils where we believe
there's potential there may be loose fill insulation in those
areas.

"When we do that, it means people are eligible to have samples
taken to determine if there might be asbestos insulation in their
properties."

The testing follows revelations several companies pumped loose
fill asbestos insulation into homes in the 1960's and 1970's.

"At this stage all of the areas we've been focusing on have been
in the south east and the south west of NSW and central west, and
in Sydney," Mr Dunphy said.

"We don't have any information at this stage to indicate there
would be loose fill insulation in the northern or New England
area, but where people have raised issues we're happy to meet with
them and to see if we can get further information that would help
us in those inquiries."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testimony Used in Tort Claims Inadmissible
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that depositions used in
asbestos lawsuits cannot also be used in Workers' Compensation
claims if the employer was not a defendant in the tort action.

In its decision, the Supreme Court addressed whether asbestos
manufacturers defending a products liability action may be
considered predecessors-in-interest with a similar motive to
develop the testimony of a claimant as an employer contesting a
Workers' Compensation claim that it had exposed its employee to
asbestos.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell delivered the Sept. 3 opinion,
reversing the lower court's judgment that the testimony was
admissible in the Workers' Compensation claim. Justices Sharon L.
Kennedy, Judith L. French, William M. O'Neill and Judge Melody
Stewart, of the Eighth Appellate District, concurred.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissented, arguing that the majority views
the predecessor-in-interest issue in "exceedingly narrow terms."

"The key issue in this case isn't whether Heinz did anything
wrong, whether intentionally, negligently or in any other way,"
Pfeifer wrote," the issue is simply whether Donald Burkhart was
exposed to asbestos at his workplace. It is clear that he was
exposed to asbestos in his workplace, and this court should not
adopt a formalistically grudging approach to allow a narrow
technical argument to obscure that unassailable fact."

Donald Burkhart worked for H.J. Heinz Company at its ketchup
bottling plants from 1946 until 1986. He worked in the boiler room
where he alleged he was exposed to asbestos-containing pipe
insulation.

Burkhart developed mesothelioma in November 2005 and died in May
2007.

Burkhart filed an asbestos lawsuit but failed to list his employer
amongst the named defendants.

After his death, his wife, Mary, filed a claim against Heinz
seeking Workers' Compensation death benefits.

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 Heinz.

The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that a deposition Burkhart
provided prior to his death is admissible to prove that Heinz
injuriously exposed him to asbestos, concluding that the
defendants in the original lawsuit were predecessors-in-interest
because they shared similar motives with Heinz.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the lower court
misinterpreted the meaning of predecessors-in-interest.

"A predecessor-in-interest relationship is not established merely
by showing that the parties to the proceedings shared an interest
in the material facts and outcome of the case," Justice O'Donnell
wrote. "Rather, a predecessor-in-interest is one from whom the
present party received the right, title, interest or obligation
that is at issue in the current litigation."

He explained that the term predecessor-in-interest is generally
used interchangeably with the phrase "persons in privity," meaning
a party's privy had the opportunity to cross examine a claimant in
the prior proceeding.

In this case, however, Heinz was unable to cross examine Burkhart
during his deposition and did not have a privy present at the
prior deposition to provide a cross examination.

"It is, therefore, not enough that a prior litigant had an
opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony," Justice
O'Donnell wrote. "There must be some legally recognized interest
shared by the parties to assuage 'the historical concern that it
is generally unfair to impose upon the party against whom the
hearsay evidence is offered responsible for the manner with which
the witness was handled by another party.'"

Furthermore, the Supreme Court disagreed that the parties had a
similar motive as Heinz to develop Burkhart's testimony. The
asbestos defendants from the original lawsuit sought to prove he
was not exposed to asbestos in its products, but did not seek to
dispute any alleged exposure at the Heinz facilities.

"A manufacturer is not necessarily motivated to disprove the
claimant's exposure to asbestos at the workplace, but rather is
focused on ensuring that its asbestos products are not identified
as causing the claimant's injury," Justice O'Donnell stated.

In fact, "a manufacturer may have an incentive to develop or allow
testimony against other potentially liable parties, which could
diminish its own liability and decrease its share of the damages,"
he added.

Therefore, the court ruled that the transcript from the deposition
testimony may not be used against Heinz in the Workers'
Compensation case.

Pfeifer, however, said there is no way for the majority to know if
they are correct in assuming the defendants' motives without
assessing every question that each of the defendants asked during
cross-examination of Burkhart, which would be impossible.

"To reach its expansive conclusion, the majority would have to
determine whether the motive of each defendant to develop the
testimony in the prior proceeding was similar to any motive that
Heinz might have to develop testimony," he wrote in his dissent.
"In short, the majority would have to determine everything that
each of the various attorneys thought throughout the entire
litigation and the reasons why they adopted the approaches they
did."

Pfeifer argued that the majority believes that each defendant
focused exclusively on pointing fingers at other defendants.

"But surely each and every one of the defendants would have argued
that there was no workplace exposure to asbestos if that had been
a credible argument," he wrote. "That none of the defendants
argued that there was no exposure to asbestos suggests that it was
overwhelmingly clear that there was exposure to asbestos in the
workplace, not that the prior defendants did not have an incentive
to establish the absence of asbestos."

"The majority's approach in this case is 'formalistically
grudging,' especially considering that we are assessing the
evidence before us on a motion for summary judgment in the context
of our no-fault workers' compensation system," he added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Could Kick Stamford Cops Out of Station
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Varnon and John Nickerson, writing for Stamford Advocate,
reported that what started as a project to upgrade heating and air
conditioning systems in the police station of the city of
Stamford, Connecticut, now has the city facing OSHA violations and
possibly $50 million or more for a new building project.

Michael Pollard, chief of staff to Mayor David Martin, with the
heads of city engineering and administration, informed the Board
of Finance there is a pressing need to do something at the police
station about asbestos and water contamination after the state
Occupational Safety and Health Administration uncovered eight
violations.

"It's not an easy fix," Pollard said.

The station can't simply be shut down for a while to correct the
problems, nor is it a simple or inexpensive job to replace a
police station, even temporarily.

Richard Freedman, a Board of Finance member, questioned why this
was coming to a head now after tests conducted earlier this year,
when asbestos was uncovered, indicated there was no health danger.

"We have a condition that's been in place for a long time,"
Freedman said. "How did we go from a notice of violation to a
whole new headquarters?"

It is indeed a problem that's been around for a long time,
according to city officials, but there is an immediate issue to be
addressed this time around.

Lou Casolo, the city's chief engineer, said when OSHA officially
delivers its notices of violation, the city will have 90 days to
do a cleaning, which won't actually solve the problem of the
asbestos being there in the first place.

The situation was uncovered when the contractor on the $1.4
million HVAC project reported potential issues with a plaster
ceiling that's hidden by a drop ceiling in the station. Testing
revealed the plaster in the ceiling contained asbestos. Air tests
showed the air, however, was clean, but OSHA found some other
problems. During upgrades to computer and communication systems,
the plaster was drilled into to hang cables. While the air does
not test positive for asbestos, OSHA will not let the city test
the air when the new ventilation system is turned on because of
concerns about health.

Mike Handler, the city's director of administration, said the HVAC
project, despite being nearly complete, is unusable because of the
asbestos conditions.

OSHA also decided to look at the water issue at the station,
according to Casolo.

For years, it's been known that there is lead in the water, so
bottled water has been brought in to drink. But people still
shower in the water and wash their hands with it. Casolo said that
also could prompt OSHA to make the city shut down the building.

Cleaning the building would cost about $1.5 million, and wouldn't
address the actual problem, according to Handler. Removal of the
asbestos might cost about $6 million, he said.

But that doesn't include the cost of moving the police out while
it's being done.

That's why a little over a week ago, Police Chief Jon Fontneau
walked next door to the state Superior Court to see if he could
borrow some jail space, temporarily.

The police station jail is in the hot zone of the potential
contamination and police will need a temporary place to keep
prisoners, especially if they can't use the heating system this
fall and winter.

The current crisis, however, comes more than a decade after the
initial calls to replace the station.

"Quite frankly, we have outgrown this building long ago," Fontneau
said.

The station was built in 1955 for a city with a smaller population
and in an era when policing was simpler. Stamford's population
since the 1950s has gone from 74,300 to more than 125,000 today.
The department's 280 officers and additional staff have long since
outgrown the building, Fontneau said. The 911 dispatch center,
training division, Emergency Operations Center, Marine Division,
Bomb Squad, Special Response Team and the major accident squad are
no longer housed inside department headquarters at 805 Bedford
Street.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Students Released Early Due to Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swampscott Reporter reported that Pamela R. H. Angelakis, M.A.,
M.Ed. Superintendent Swampscott Public Schools, in Massachusetts,
released Hadley Elementary School students and staff early after
being informed by her staff that two small areas of crumbling
plaster had been observed in the school building. Out of an
abundance of caution, students and staff were released immediately
so that the material could be tested for the possible presence of
asbestos. The test results were expedited and indicate that no
asbestos is present in the plaster.

While the presence of asbestos at the Hadley, a building more than
100 years old, is not surprising, the District has been working
closely with appropriate environmental experts to implement an
asbestos abatement plan with monies earmarked from the Town‹¨«s
capital improvement committee.

Because the crumbling plaster was located in a means of egress it
was decided that a swift dismissal was appropriate. It should go
without saying that the health, safety, and well-being of our
students and staff is our first priority. The District will
continue to take all necessary measures to protect its community,
and apologizes for any inconvenience that may have arisen from
this necessary precaution.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Projects in Quad Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Savanah Dickinson, writing for The Daily Reveille, reported that
the two asbestos abatement tents in the Quad, in Louisiana, are
preventing the release of airborne asbestos particles.

University Facility Services is replacing the insulation in the
steam tunnels under campus -- steam tunnels originally insulated
with asbestos.  According to the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission website, asbestos can cause lung cancer when
inhaled in high doses.

The University tunnel system moves steam to heat buildings. Steam
tunnels also contain the chilled water line, transporting cool
water to the building and warm water to the cogeneration plant.
Dave Maharrey, associate executive director of facility and
utility operations, said when the asbestos abatement is complete,
utility workers will be able to repair the tunnels without the use
of special equipment. Regulations require utility workers to wear
protective equipment because of the threat of deteriorating
asbestos.

"The workers that are working on it are qualified, trained and
licensed," Maharrey said.

The abatement tents are also used as entry points for workers.
Maharrey said Facility Services uses negative air machines in the
tunnels as an extra form of precaution. These machines capture the
contaminated air, ensuring no asbestos particles are released on
campus.

Although Maharrey ensures there is no need for concern, graduate
student Abigail Smithson admits the situation is worrisome.
Smithson compared this asbestos work to the issues surrounding the
Studio Arts Building.

"I know there were also some issues in the Studio Art Building
last year before I was a student with some asbestos problems and
ventilations issues with some of the rooms we're using chemistry
in," Smithson said.

Biology freshman Erica Madison and Smithson agreed Facility
Services seems to be taking proper precautions by placing the
abatement tents over the vents.

Madison said the tents block the entryway in the Quad.
Smithson said she has never noticed the tent, but it appears to be
blocking the flow of student traffic after giving it a second
look.

Maharrey could not give a date for the completion of the project
because of the labyrinth of tunnels under the campus.

"I don't think we have a set timeline to be done," Maharrey said.
"We are just kind of doing it in pieces."

He said he believes there are two tents on campus now, but could
not tell how many more there will be in the future.

"We're being aggressive about it right now," Maharrey said.
This project was delayed last spring when asbestos particles
contaminated muddy water in the tunnels. Facility Services cleaned
the tunnel completely, prolonging the project.

Maharrey said they have not encountered this problem in the steam
tunnels under the Quad.

"The Union tunnels were more compromised," Maharrey said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Fund Wants to Pay in Installments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Binsted, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
the James Hardie Industries asbestos compensation fund is headed
for a funding shortfall and is seeking approval from the NSW
Supreme Court to pay some victims in installments rather than lump
sums.

Fairfax Media reported that the Asbestos Injuries Compensation
Fund would likely have to draw on its $320 million loan facility
with the NSW Government in 2015-16 to meet claims.

James Hardie said it had been advised by the AICF that a funding
shortfall is likely from 2017 and that the AICF "would like to
enter discussions with the company [James Hardie] and the NSW
Government concerning an Approved Payment Scheme".

The Approved Payment Scheme will see some proven claims paid to
victims in installments rather than as a lump sum and some other
liabilities will be deferred.

Under the 2006 Amended Final Funding Agreement James Hardie, which
is a building materials provider, pays up to 35 per cent of its
operating cashflow into the AICF.

James Hardie paid $120 million into the fund on July 1, which is
all the fund had to pay claims as of July 3 after repaying $51.6
million in interest and principal from a previous drawdown on the
loan facility.

James Hardie has paid US$556 million to its own investors over the
past two years.  It has paid a total of $721.4 million into the
AICF since its inception in February 2007.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Dubuque Schools Not a "Huge Concern"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Becker, writing for THOnline.com, reported that asbestos
lurks among floor tiles and pipes in many schools in Dubuque,
Iowa.  "For the most part, as long as you leave it alone you can't
release the fibers and such," said Wahlert Catholic High School
Principal Ron Meyers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Capital Hill Employees Concered About Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Hess, writing for Roll Call, reported that the asbestos
emergency that temporarily closed the House side of the Capitol,
in Washington, D.C., was a scary ordeal for Architect of the
Capitol and Capitol Police employees working the overnight shift.

Union officials representing workers at both agencies told CQ Roll
Call they are concerned about potential exposure to the human
carcinogen, which can cause chronic lung disease as well as
cancer. The Office of Compliance, an agency created by Congress to
ensure safety in the legislative branch workplace, has been asked
to inspect the incident for an alleged violation of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Asbestos fibers and other debris were released into the air around
2:30 a.m. or 3 a.m., when AOC contractors removing insulation
containing asbestos from pipes and valves on the Capitol's fourth
floor had an accident above the East Grand Staircase. Most of
Capitol Hill learned about the incident hours later, when doors to
the House side of the Capitol were closed as engineers and
certified industrial hygienists evaluated the scene.

Wally Reed, president of American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees Local 626, which represents approximately 500
laborers, custodians, gardeners and other workers in the House and
Senate office buildings, Capitol and Botanic Garden, said he has
made multiple attempts to get a list from the AOC of employees who
were exposed and the level of exposure, but no list has been
provided.

"We are especially concerned with the bargaining unit employees
who might have been exposed," Reed said in an email. "I was
initially told there was minimal exposure to only a handful of
employees."

AOC spokeswoman Laura Condeluci said the agency does not comment
on personnel issues, but she provided a statement saying the
safety of employees, congressional staff and visitors is the AOC's
top priority.

"The morning of the incident, a third-party certified industrial
hygienist evaluated the scene and conducted air samples, the
results of which were well below the regulatory limit for general
space occupancy," Condeluci said in an email.

Jim Konczos, chairman of the Capitol Police Labor Committee's
executive board, said one officer was "shaken up" after being
exposed to the dust, and is considering hiring a lawyer. The union
claims the department failed to warn or protect officers from
exposure, saying no advance notice of the spill was radioed out to
officers from command.

At least three Capitol Police personnel were in the area of the
potential release, department spokesman Shennell Antrobus
confirmed to CQ Roll Call. Those exposed to the debris and dust
were decontaminated with a highly efficient particulate air filter
vacuum, and sent to exchange their uniforms for a fresh set.
Antrobus also noted that the Capitol Police complied with AOC air
sampling, waiting until the area was deemed safe to traverse.

On that morning, officers allegedly were confronted by an angry
Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who barged through the police line
established to prevent entry to the House side of the Capitol.

Scott Mulligan, deputy executive director with the OOC, confirmed
that the agency has received three requests for inspection
regarding the July 10 asbestos release. Two are from AOC employees
and one is from the Capitol Police union.

"We are still interviewing witnesses and collecting documents,"
Mulligan told CQ Roll Call in an email. "We will write a report
and share it with the responsible employing office. If there are
findings we will identify actions for the employing office to take
to resolve the finding."

If the investigation finds that there has indeed been a violation
of OSHA regulations, the OOC may take a series of steps to enforce
correction of the violation. In 2006, the agency filed a complaint
charging the AOC with failing to eliminate years-old health and
safety hazards first discovered in 2000 in the miles-long
underground utility system that provides steam and chilled water
to Capitol Hill.

Among those hazards were falling concrete, excessive heat and
asbestos. The complaint led to a lawsuit, and that eventually
resulted in a settlement agreement under which AOC promised to
complete repairs to the tunnels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Underway at Greenall High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that workers are continuing to remove asbestos
insulation that was disturbed during an August wind storm that
rocked the Greenall High School, east of Regina, in Canada.

A portion of the building's roof was affected by the storm and
asbestos insulation was disturbed.

According to Lyle Stecyck, a superintendent from the Prairie
Valley School Division, air quality in the building is being
tested and no issues have been recorded.

"I'm sure there are questions," Stecyck said. "Personally I would
have questions [as] it would be of a concern to me. But again we
want to be out front: if anything came back that was a red flag
we'd take the necessary action."

While there have been reports of students complaining of itchy
eyes, the school division said testing has not revealed any
concerns.

"They have my commitment that we will do whatever we can to ensure
that safety and health of our occupants," Stecyck added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Claimants Want Records Kept Private
------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reported that attorneys for the
claimants' committee in Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's
asbestos-related bankruptcy case have asked a North Carolina
bankruptcy judge to seal records from an aggregated estimation of
pending and future mesothelioma claims against the company,
claiming they contain asbestos victims' confidential personal
information.

In a motion to seal, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants in the Garlock case argues to U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge J. Craig Whitley that details of individual asbestos claims
and resolutions involving many different solvent and bankrupt
defendants, gathered to support their claims, should be kept
private.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Alleging Cahill Gordon Hid Evidence Revived
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported
that Cahill Gordon & Reindel once again faces a putative class
action that alleges it conspired with a client to destroy and
conceal evidence in an effort to subvert asbestos suits brought in
state courts throughout the U.S.

A precedential Sept. 3 ruling by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals in Williams v. BASF Catalysts partly overturned a lower
court decision that had thrown out the case in its entirety.

The appellate court restored claims against the New York firm and
client BASF Catalysts for fraud, which had been dismissed below
based on the New Jersey litigation privilege.

Third Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes, joined by Chief Judge Theodore
McKee and Judge Thomas Ambro, wrote that the privilege "often
immunizes lawyers and parties from recrimination based on their
statements in judicial proceedings, but the privilege has never
applied to shield systematic fraud directed at the integrity of
the judicial process. Nor should it be."

The appeals court also reinstated claims for fraudulent
concealment or spoliation, finding that the lower court "set the
bar too high" on the damage element.

The court said it was sufficient to allege that the plaintiffs'
personal injury suits suffered as a result of the concealed and
destroyed evidence--they settled cases on unfavorable terms,
decided not to bring cases that appeared to be meritless, or
failed to sustain cases for lack of proof that BASF's products
contained talc. In addition, they incurred pecuniary losses and
damages by having to proceed without the spoliated evidence or
replace, locate or identify evidence.

The panel, however, affirmed the dismissal of New Jersey Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims on the grounds
that the plaintiffs' allegations of injury to their prosecution of
their asbestos lawsuits did not satisfy the RICO pleading
requirement of injury to their business or property.

The six plaintiffs represent the estates of deceased spouses or
other relatives who allegedly died from exposure to asbestos-
contaminated talc produced by Engelhard Corp. of Iselin, which was
taken over by BASF in 2006, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs allege that those asbestos suits were dismissed or
withdrawn because Engelhard in-house counsel and the company's
lawyers at Cahill hid evidence showing that the company's talc
products contained asbestos and then relied on the lack of such
evidence to argue the cases had no merit, court documents said.

In addition to the firm and the company, the plaintiffs sued
Cahill Gordon partner William "Peter" Sloane, then-associates Ira
Dembrow and Scott Martin, in-house counsel Arthur Dornbusch II and
Thomas Halket and Engelhard's Vice President of Research and
Development Glenn Hemstock.

The complaint describes a 25-year scheme dating back to a lawsuit
filed in 1979 over the death of an Engelhard employee during which
test results turned up confirming the presence of asbestos in
Engelhard talc, which employees also admitted to in deposition
testimony.

BASF, through its counsel at Cahill, settled the case in 1984
subject to a confidentiality clause that prohibited them from
discussing it or sharing the evidence, according to the complaint.

Anticipating more asbestos suits, the company circulated a memo
that same year directing employees to collect documents relating
to the tainted talc so they could be discarded. The papers were
subsequently destroyed or "secreted away," the complaint alleges.

Cahill then allegedly helped its client manufacture favorable
evidence. They "assembled template and stock pleading, discovery
and motions documents for use by local counsel in asbestos injury
claim lawsuits" that contained false or misleading information
about [Engelhard] products" and procured "false unsworn and sworn
representations, including false affidavits, false and incorrect
expert reports and discovery response verifications" by Engelhard
employees, officers, and/or consultants and experts, the complaint
alleges.

The complaint further alleges the defendants used the absence of
inculpatory evidence and the existence of false exonerating
evidence to frustrate asbestos injury suits, misleading their
adversaries as well as the courts, "systematically and uniformly"
denying that the talc contained asbestos and asserting there was
no evidence that it did.

Williams and the other plaintiffs sued in federal court in Newark
in March 2009, including claims under the New York Judiciary law
against Cahill, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy. U.S.
District Judge Stanley Chesler dismissed those claims in 2012 and
that decision was not appealed.

In reversing with respect to the fraud claims, the Third Circuit
noted that "New Jersey's Supreme Court has never recognized the
litigation privilege to immunize systematic fraud, let alone fraud
calculated to thwart the judicial process" and that the alleged
conduct, which "actively frustrated the search for the truth and
purposefully misled their adversaries," did not serve the purpose
of the privilege--"to encourage open channels of communication and
the presentation of evidence in judicial proceedings."

Fuentes distinguished the alleged fraud in Williams from
defamation and other tort-type claims that have been held to be
protected by the privilege. Fuentes said "judicial oversight or
criminal or professional sanctions might adequately deter
litigation misconduct" but are "inadequate for systematic fraud"
like that alleged here, which occurred "in and out of courtrooms
from Ohio to Pennsylvania to New York" and "apparently outlasted
the careers of many of the perpetrators."

"No single court had the perspective or authority to mitigate the
fraud or the ability to detect it," Fuentes said. "However
appropriate professional discipline may have been (or may still
be), should the allegations be proven true, that discipline would
be too little and too late to do any good for the plaintiffs or
the courts."

Plaintiffs counsel Christopher Placitella of Cohen Placitella &
Roth in Red Bank, N.J., said he was pleased the case could now
move forward and that it potentially affects thousands of people.

Jeffrey Pollock of Fox Rothschild in Lawrenceville, N.J., who
argued the appeal for the plaintiffs, applauded the court's
"morally correct" position in refusing to apply the privilege but
said, "I respectfully disagree that New Jersey [RICO] law is not
broad enough to recognize a chose in action as a property right."

John Villa, of Williams & Connolly in Washington, D.C., who
represents the Cahill defendants, said in a statement that the
court "simply decided whether the case should have been dismissed
on preliminary motions, and it was therefore required to accept as
true the unproven allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint. When
the case returns to the district court, Cahill will have the
opportunity to challenge the plaintiffs' allegations, and the firm
is confident that the facts will demonstrate that the allegations
against it are unwarranted and that the firm's conduct met all
professional standards."

A statement supplied by BASF spokesperson Joseph Jones said the
court "completely rejected allegations that BASF acted in
violation of New Jersey's RICO statute" and "correctly held that
much of the relief plaintiffs requested is unprecedented and
unconstitutional" leaving "only a small portion" of the lawsuit
concerning "suits brought decades ago against Engelhard...relating
to Engelhard's talc mining operations that ended in 1983."

The company is "evaluating its options to obtain further review of
the Court of Appeals' decision on this point," Jones further
stated. BASF is represented by Kirkland & Ellis.

Dornbusch's attorney, Kevin Marino of Marino Tortorella & Boyle in
Chatham, N.J., said he plans to refile a motion seeking dismissal
of the claims against him on the grounds that no wrongful facts
are alleged regarding him and he was sued merely as the company's
general counsel.

Halket's lawyer, Eric Tunis of Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis in
Iselin, N.J., commented that he and his client are gratified the
court affirmed dismissal of the most serious claims but
disappointed that Halket is still in the case "even though he left
Engelhard in 1986, years before the complained of conduct actually
took place."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court to Review Take-Home Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In Sedgwick LLP's June 2014 Toxic Tort and Environmental Law
Update, we reported on two conflicting decisions  from different
California appellate courts regarding companies' duty to prevent
"take home exposures" to asbestos brought home by employees from
their workplaces.  One court found that premises owners have no
duty to protect family members of workers on their property --
including employees -- from secondary exposure to asbestos used on
their property, while another court found that product
manufacturers have a duty to protect their employees' families
from secondary asbestos exposure resulting from the negligent
manufacture of asbestos-containing products at their facilities.
On August 20, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted petitions
to review both cases, framing the issue as follows:  If an
employer's business involves either the use or the manufacturer of
asbestos-containing products, does the employer owe a duty of care
to members of an employee's household who could be affected by
asbestos brought home on the employee's clothing?  The law firm
said it will continue to monitor these cases and advise when the
California Supreme Court issues its decision.

Sedgwick LLP is an international litigation and business law firm
that provides counseling, risk management, litigation management,
trial, appellate and transactional legal services to sophisticated
corporate clients. Founded in 1933 as a three-person firm in San
Francisco, Sedgwick now has more than 350 attorneys in offices
around the world. Sedgwick's collective experience spans the globe
and virtually every industry.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parent Kept in the Dark Over Fibro Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Shammas, writing for Get West London, reported that in a
letter to parents, the headteacher of an English school apologised
to parents that the school year was to be delayed, but failed to
mention discovery of asbestos was one of the reasons.

Parents feel they were "kept in the dark" after the discovery of
toxic asbestos on school grounds was not mentioned in a letter
explaining why the beginning of the new academic year was delayed.

Belmont School, in Hibbert Road, Harrow Weald, was expecting to
welcome its incoming reception class on September 15, however
parents were informed that the start to their school lives must be
delayed due to 'unforeseen challenges', which getwestlondon has
learned was the discovery of unsafe asbestos, not mentioned in the
letter.

Workers made the discovery three weeks ago while working on
expanding the school's building in line with Harrow's borough-wide
expansion project after demolishing one of the school's existing
features.

One concerned parent, who asked not to be named, said: "I think it
is a disgrace that we have been told at the last minute and kept
in the dark.

"If we do not send our children to school, we get rightly
punished. But what happens to them if they tell us they cannot
teach our children? Nothing.

"It is one rule for them, and another rule for the rest of us.

"What have they been doing all summer that they only got round to
letting us know about something so serious?"

Children from Years 1 to 6 began school today as normal, however
delays have meant that the all-new reception building is not yet
completed.

Writing to parents, headteacher Lindsey Shaw said: "I would like
to apologise for this delay, and Harrow Council and the project
team have asked me to apologise to you on their behalf, as well.

"The contractors have encountered some unforeseen challenges in
completing their work on the Reception classes, and I am told that
the one week delay is unavoidable.

"We believe that it is vital that your child has the best possible
experience of Belmont School on their first day -- with all
facilities in place and a welcoming and settled environment for
the start of their journey through education."

A spokesman for Harrow Council said that there is no cause for
alarm or concern about the asbestos found at the school, adding
that buildings of this age contain asbestos.

He added: "The normal Health & Safety Executive (HSE) procedures
are being followed for its removal, including a 14-day notice to
the HSE.

"This has contributed to a slight delay to part of the summer
works at Belmont.

"The school sent a general letter to Reception parents to
apologise and notify them of this delay.

"It concentrated on the arrangements for pupils, and as usual
contained no specific details about the particulars of the
building work.

"It also promises another personalised letter to discuss their
children's school start in more detail."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Seeks Justice Over Husband's Fibro Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Westmoreland Gazette reported that the widow of a former
Ulverston, England, pig farm worker is taking legal action over
his death from an asbestos-related disease.

Bernard Thompson died aged 80 in May 2012 from mesothelioma, a
cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by exposure to deadly
asbestos dust decades ago.  His widow Audrey Thompson has
instructed specialist asbestos lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to
investigate his death and find out how and why he was not better
protected from the harmful substance. The law firm has now issued
court proceedings.

Bernard was exposed to asbestos dust whilst working on a pig and
poultry farm run by Jim Barton in Rosside near Ulverston, between
1953 and 1976. While building a number of pig houses, he used
corrugated asbestos sheets in the roof. The first of these pig
houses was constructed in about 1957, the second around 1960 and
the third in 1962 or 1963.

Mrs Thompson, from Ulverston, said: "Bernard only really became
ill in January 2012 but over the following months the terrible
disease quickly became worse and he died just months later.

"My husband was a hard-working man and it has been difficult to
come to terms with the fact that he became so ill simply because
he went to work every day on the farm. I just hope that people who
either knew him or remember any information about the insurers at
the farm come forward to help with our investigations."

Roger Maddocks, a partner in the asbestos disease litigation team
at Irwin Mitchell said: "In order to provide Mrs Thompson with a
fair financial settlement we have tried to trace the relevant
employers' liability insurer from the time her husband was exposed
to asbestos.

"Our evidence suggests that the National Farmers' Union is the
most likely insurer but they are disputing this point and we have
issued court proceedings so that we can get clarity on this issue
and look to progress the case."

Because asbestos-related diseases take decades before they take
hold investigations into the exposure and the relevant insurers
can be difficult and require specialist knowledge. The owners of
the pig farm, Mr Barton and his wife, have since died and the farm
ceased operating in the 1980s. Now lawyers at Irwin Mitchell are
appealing to people who may have worked at the farm to help with
their enquiries.

Mr Maddocks added: "We would like to speak to anyone who might
have any information on the working conditions or insurance
arrangements at the Ulverston pig farm as they may be able to help
Mrs Thompson to progress her case."

Mr Thompson fitted the roofs of each pig house on and off over a
period of about two months. He would have to drill through them
using an electric drill and cut them down to size with a saw. This
work would send considerable amounts of asbestos dust into the air
and even outside it would have been difficult to avoid breathing
the harmful fibres in.

In addition to the roof panels, asbestos boards were used to
secure pig doors as pigs have a tendency to chew through wood.
These boards were cut to size using either a handsaw or a circular
saw and then each sheet had around nine holes drilled in it. Each
pig house had about seven or eight pigsties with doors on so there
were lots of asbestos boards to be cut.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Denies "Take-Home Exposure" Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reported that a
federal judge at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania has dismissed a plaintiff's claim that handling
and laundering her husband's allegedly asbestos-laden clothing was
one of the factors that caused her to contract mesothelioma,
saying that her husband's employer did not have a duty to be held
responsible for a spouse's exposure to the material.

Marilyn Gillen's claim that her illness was also contracted from
her years as a secretary at the Boeing Vertol facility in Ridley
Park, Pa., where her husband, Hugh, also worked, still stands.

The ruling, authored by U.S. District Judge Eduardo Judge Judge
Robreno, only dealt with Gillen's claim of take-home exposure from
her husband, saying that Boeing failed to protect her from
asbestos by warning Gillen of potential hazards by handling his
clothing and providing on-site facilities for her husband to clean
his clothing before returning home.

Since no definitive law or rule exists establishing an employer's
duty to an employee's spouse, Judge Judge Robreno had to consider
past rulings and precedents to inform his opinion and predict how
the State Supreme Court would handle the case.

Using the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2000 case Althaus v.
Cohen, Judge Judge Robreno considered five factors for his
decision:

* The relationship between the parties
* The social utility of the actor's conduct
* The nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm
incurred
* The consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor
* The overall public interest in the proposed solution

Judge Judge Robreno wrote that the narrow focus of Gillen's tort
relies on the asbestos she had been exposed to at home; any
contact she had with the material as an employee is irrelevant.
Under that light, Gillen and Boeing's relationship was basically
as legal strangers because all of the take-home exposure occurred
off-site.

The social utility consideration also did not play a factor into
the ruling, Judge Judge Robreno wrote, because Boeing provided a
legal service to its employees and customers and did not engage in
any unlawful activities. As awareness of the dangers of asbestos
grew in the 1970s, Boeing worked to abate the substance at its
facilities.

Pennsylvania does not hold a foreseeability of risk in hindsight
standard when deciding a defendant's duty, Judge Judge Robreno
wrote. Rather, the risks must be predictable in the first
instance.

"Therefore, it is not enough to claim that Boeing knew, at the
time, that Plaintiff's husband was exposed to asbestos while
working there," Judge Judge Robreno says. "Rather, Plaintiff must
allege that Boeing knew, or should have known, that if Mr. Gillen
took home his work clothing, Mrs. Gillen would be exposed to
friable asbestos while washing his work clothing at home."

Gillen made no such allegation, according to the court opinion.
Even if she had, Judge Judge Robreno wrote that would not have
been the sole factor in determining Boeing's duty. Doing so would
be akin to blaming a physician for not notifying the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation that one of his patient's had vision
problems if that patient had caused a car accident. Such a
practice would result in endless liability, Judge Judge Robreno
held.

The possibility of endless liabilty also weighed against the
plaintiff in Judge Judge Robreno's determination. If Gillen had
been permitted to continue her claim, other third parties who came
into contact with her husband could submit their own complaints,
such as babysitters, neighbors, children and dry cleaners.

Finally, in determining the overall public interest for the
solution, Judge Judge Robreno analyzed numerous rulings by common
pleas courts throughout Pennsylvania and consistently found that
the lower courts ruled against plaintiffs claiming spouse's
employers owed a duty to household members. He could not find any
potential public harm in reversing this trend.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Anderson Man Sentenced for Knowing Endangerment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Powdersville Post reported that Scott William Farmer, 37, of
Anderson, South Carolina, was sentenced Aug. 19 in federal court
in Spartanburg for knowing endangerment by release of asbestos, a
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 7413(c)(5).

U.S. District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis of Spartanburg sentenced
Farmer to 41 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.

Evidence presented at the change of plea hearing established that
between November 2012 and April 2013, Farmer and others working
for Farmer demolished portions of Haynsworth Mill, located at 2115
McDuffie St. in Anderson, to sell scrap metal from the building.
The materials in the building contained hazardous levels of
asbestos.

Farmer was repeatedly warned by S.C. Department of Health and
Environmental Control to stop his demolition efforts because of
the danger.

Farmer continued tearing down the building and failed to take
required precautions to safeguard his workers, individuals to whom
he sold the metal from the Mill, and the public.

On March 14, 2013, an Emergency Order was issued against Farmer to
cease all activities on the site due to the hazardous levels of
asbestos. In April 2013, DHEC inspectors again located Farmer and
another conducting demolition work on the contaminated site.

Residents can report any violations to the EPA at 800-241-1754 or
www2.epa.gov/enforcement/report-environmental-violations.

The case was investigated by agents of the Environmental
Protection Agency and Department of Health and Environmental
Control of South Carolina. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jamie Lea
Schoen of the Greenville office prosecuted the case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BASF Must Face Fibro Coverup Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and Sophia Pearson, writing for Bloomberg News,
reported that BASF SE, the world's biggest chemical maker, was
ordered to face claims it fraudulently hid evidence that its talc
products contained asbestos as it sought to scuttle thousands of
personal-injury lawsuits.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia revived a suit alleging
a unit of BASF, based in Ludwigshafen, Germany, and law firm
Cahill, Gordon & Reindel LLP systematically concealed damaging
evidence and manufactured documents to defeat claims that its talc
contained cancer-causing asbestos. The unit mined talc, a mineral
used in products ranging from wallboard to balloons.

The decision comes as BASF is predicting it will hit profit
targets despite economic growth that's falling short of forecasts,
as well as unfavorable exchange rates. Chief Executive Officer
Kurt Bock told Bloomberg TV in July that the chemical maker is
emphasizing efficiency to compensate for markets he described as
"volatile and challenging."

BASF and other makers of building products are still grappling
with asbestos litigation, which began in the 1970s and has turned
into the longest-running mass tort in U.S. history. Companies and
insurers have paid at least $70 billion to settle injury claims
tied to asbestos-laden products, according to a 2005 study by the
Rand Corp.

Joseph Jones, a BASF spokesman, said the court threw out some
claims and left only a small portion of the case to proceed.

"BASF is evaluating its options to obtain further review of the
court of appeals' decision," he said in an e-mailed statement.

John Villa, a lawyer for Cahill with Williams & Connolly LLP in
Washington, said the firm intends to fight claims of wrongdoing in
the BASF case.

'The Facts'

"The firm is confident the facts will demonstrate that the
allegations against it are unwarranted and that the firm's conduct
met all professional standards," Villa said in an e-mailed
statement.

In 2012, a federal judge in New Jersey dismissed the suit, in
which asbestos claimants alleged that a predecessor company to
BASF, Catalysts LLC, worked with Cahill to fabricate evidence
showing the company's talc was asbestos-free. The deception
allegedly duped plaintiffs into dropping their cases or settling
them on the cheap.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler said that while the suit
described "abhorrent and outrageous litigation tactics," there was
no basis for a fraud suit under New Jersey law because the actions
occurred as part of judicial proceedings. Chesler didn't rule on
the merits of the allegations.

A three-judge panel of the Philadelphia appeals court overturned
Chesler's ruling, finding the asbestos claimants properly raised
fraud claims.

'Systematic Fraud'

New Jersey has never recognized a litigation privilege "to
immunize systematic fraud, let alone fraud calculated to thwart
the judicial process," the panel said in its ruling.

The suit was filed by the families of six workers who died from
asbestos-related illnesses allegedly caused by talc mined by
Engelhard Corp., which BASF acquired for $5 billion in 2006.
Engelhard operated a talc mine in Vermont from 1967 to 1983.

The families contend Engelhard executives, along with Cahill
lawyers, undertook to hide or destroy documents showing the
company's talc contained asbestos to shield it from liability. The
company had test results from as early as 1972 showing the talc
contained the cancer-causing material, according to the suit.

In a 1979 suit against the company, three Engelhard employees
testified that it was aware the talc mine contained asbestos,
according to the suit. After the company settled, that testimony
was sealed by a confidentiality agreement and never made public,
according to the the suit.

State Cases

It wasn't until another asbestos claimant sued the company in 2009
that a former Engelhard research chemist testified he'd found
asbestos in the company's talc "many years ago," according to the
appeals court ruling. That led plaintiffs' lawyers to uncover the
ditching of the asbestos evidence, the appeals court judges said.

Engelhard and its attorneys pursued "a strategy of denial and
deceit" to hoodwink people into dropping or settling state-court
cases cheaply, the asbestos claimants contend in their suit. Those
cases were filed in courts in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York,
according to the appeals court's ruling.

Cahill, which has more than 300 lawyers, handles corporate and
commercial litigation, along with bankruptcy and tax cases,
according to its website.

The lower-court case is Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 11-cv-
1754, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark). The
appeal is Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 13-1089, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Library Fibro Abatement Due Sept. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Tribune reported that sealed bids for the Asbestos
Abatement Project Morton Grove Public Library will be received by
the Morton Grove Public Library at 6140 Lincoln Avenue, Morton
Grove, Cook County, Illinois 60053 until 9:30 am on the 17th day
of September, 2014. Bids will be publicly opened and read aloud at
the above stated time and place.

Removal Specifications may be obtained at the mandatory pre-bid
walk through conducted by the Consultant, Midwest Environmental
Consulting Services, Inc., 4 Bonnie Lane, Yorkville, Illinois
60560, Phone 630-553-3989. Bidders must call 24 hours prior to
reserve a set of Removal Specifications. There will be a $100.00
non-refundable deposit for each set of Removal Specifications.

There will be a one time Pre-Bid Walk Through in order for the
contractors to review the project scope of work at 9:00 am on
September 11, 2014. Attendance at this walk through is mandatory.
Failure to attend will result in disqualification of the bidder's
bid. By submission of bid it is understood that the Bidder has
satisfied this mandatory requirement.

Each bid must be accompanied by a Bid Guarantee in the form of a
Bid Bond from a company with an A-1 best rating, in the amount
equal to not less than ten percent (10%) of the bid and made
payable to the Morton Grove Public Library, 6140 Lincoln Avenue,
Morton Grove, IL 60053. No bid shall be withdrawn for a period of
thirty (30) days after the bid opening date without the consent of
the Owner. Checks or drafts of unsuccessful bidders will be
returned as soon as possible as practicable after opening and
checking the bids.

Successful bidder must provide a Performance Bond and a Labor and
Material Payment Bond in the full amount of the Contract,
acceptable to the Owner.

Each contractor is to submit a lump sum bid and requested
alternate bids for the entire project. Contractor shall include
the cost the required performance and payment bond in this sum.

The Asbestos Abatement Contractor is responsible for all work
outlined in this specification which is not bid as a separate
contract, however, he will not be responsible for coordination of
trades that are not part of his Contract.

The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to
waive any informalities in bidding.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother With Fibro-Related Cancer Wins Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Shammas, writing for Get West London, reported that a mother
who was told she had less than a year to live after being
diagnosed with terminal asbestos-related cancer -- which she
believes originates from her school days -- has won a settlement
from Brent Council, in England.

Sarah Bowman, 46, from Wembley, was diagnosed with peritoneal
mesothelioma in August 2009 and believes her condition came as a
result of her time as a pupil at the now-demolished William
Gladstone High School in Park Side, Dollis Hill, from 1979 to
1984.

She has now won a settlement from the council, which denies
liability, although she does not wish to disclose the size of the
sum.

Ms Bowman said: "My life has been turned upside down since my
diagnosis -- although at the moment I am in remission, I am
petrified that one day the cancer will return and I will have to
relive this whole ordeal once more.

"To be told that I had a terminal illness and had less than a year
to live was simply too much to comprehend and my family and I have
struggled to overcome this."

A sample of a potentially toxic mineral ready to be taken away for
testing for possible levels of asbestos
Ms Bowman recalls the ceilings of the classrooms and corridors of
her secondary school contained asbestos.

She remembers the ceiling tiles being disturbed by pupils pushing
them up and remembers workmen carrying out electrical maintenance
resulting in the asbestos dust and debris falling on the floor and
on the pupil's clothes.

The school, which only opened in 1975, was later closed and was
demolished in 1998 to make way for housing.

Her case was handled by the asbestos specialist law firm Irwin
Mitchell, which secured the settlement which covers her pain,
suffering and financial losses throughout the time she was
receiving treatment for mesothelioma.

Joanne Jefferies, who represented Ms Bowman, said: "Asbestos
exposure has long been regarded as something that only happens in
heavy industry, but the presence of the material in so many public
buildings such as schools and hospitals means that more and more
people who are not working in traditional construction trades are
being affected.

"Through no fault of her own, Sarah was exposed to this hazardous
dust as a pupil at a school she was attended and this is a stark
reminder of the dangers of exposure to asbestos and the
devastating affect it can have on people's lives.

"We have repeatedly called for a dedicated programme to identify
public buildings across the country containing asbestos, and a
schedule to systematically remove it on a priority basis depending
on its state of disrepair in each situation.

"Given the vulnerability of children to the potential dangers of
asbestos, we would suggest schools are given the highest priority
in any action that may be taken."

Councillor Michael Pavey (Labur), deputy leader of Brent Council,
said: "We are delighted that following her operation, Miss
Bowman's cancer has not returned and we send our very best wishes
for the future.

"The claim against the council has been settled with Ms Bowman's
agreement and for legal reasons we cannot comment further."

William Gladstone High School in Park Side, Dollis Hill, was later
closed and was demolished in 1998 to make way for housing.

Asbestos was discovered at William Gladstone High School in 1992
following a fire but the council told Irwin Mitchell in 2011 it
did not hold any documents that would show whether asbestos would
have been present during Mrs Bowman's time at the school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wisconsin AG Fines Firm for Fibro Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Construction & Demolition reported that the office of Wisconsin
Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has obtained a judgment against
PJC Group LLC, requiring the company to pay $47,272 in
forfeitures, court costs and mandatory surcharges for violating
Wisconsin laws requiring an inspection for asbestos and the safe
removal of any asbestos before renovation or demolition begins.

According to the complaint, PJC Group LLC, based in Menasha,
Wisconsin, purchased the former Gilbert Paper Co. mill in Menasha
on April 16, 2004. PJC intended to develop the facility by
renovating a portion and demolishing the rest.

As part of the development, and to assist in its funding, PJC
hired other firms to remove scrap metal from the facility and pay
PJC a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the metal.

During a July 2006 inspection, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) reportedly observed workers removing scrap metal
by cutting and removing large pipe insulation without following
appropriate asbestos safety precautions. All of the material was
dry and the inspector presumed the fibrous material contained
asbestos. The inspector also claimed to have observed piles of
discarded insulation lying about the mill.

Subsequent sampling by the DNR found the waste insulation
contained asbestos.

The agency also found that three large boilers had been removed
from the boiler house building for their metal scrap value. The
removal disturbed asbestos-containing material, without the area
being inspected for asbestos and notification of this activity
being filed with the DNR, and without proper asbestos safeguards
being followed, including the wetting of the asbestos, before and
after disturbance.

PJC pleaded no contest to violating Wisconsin's asbestos laws by
failing to perform a thorough predemolition or renovation activity
inspection of the entire facility in order to determine the
presence of asbestos, failing to notify the DNR of PJC's intention
to conduct renovation and demolition activity at the facility,
failing to remove regulated asbestos containing material from the
facility prior to activity that disturbed it, failing to
sufficiently having wetted the asbestos and keeping it wetted
until it was contained and failing to carefully lower the asbestos
to the ground or floor during removal.

The court imposed a penalty on July 30, 2014, inclusive of
forfeitures, cost and surcharges of $47,272 on the company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Gov't Closer to Decision on Mr. Fluffy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McIlroy, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
Australia's Federal Employment Minister Eric Abetz and ACT
political leaders have pledged to continue bipartisan efforts to
resolve Canberra's loose-fill asbestos crisis and downplayed the
controversy over lead campaigner Brianna Heseltine.

Federal government departments are working to finalise the
Commonwealth's contribution to the clean-up or demolition of the
more than 1000 asbestos-contaminated homes in the ACT, and Chief
Minister Katy Gallagher and Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson both
said they awaited a formal announcement and expert advice on
safety.

A spokesman for Senator Abetz said he was working closely with Ms
Gallagher "to help progress a solution to the Mr Fluffy issue".

"Minister Abetz has previously met with Ms Heseltine, as the
spokesperson for affected owners and residents, and will continue
to deal with her in this capacity," the spokesman said.

A small number of those caught up in the crisis have criticised
the high-profile Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group
founder, suggesting she has complicated the campaign by pursuing
her own political ambitions.

Mr Hanson has slammed Labor for recruiting Ms Heseltine and
criticised the 39-year-old mother-of-two for not  disclosing to
Fluffy homeowners that she had joined the ALP on July 29 and was
contemplating standing in the 2016 ACT election.

Ms Heseltine used a private social media account to announce her
plans after discussions with Labor senator Kate Lundy, and asked
friends and family members to keep the news "under wraps".

Debate about the political stoush continued, a day after Ms
Heseltine said she would remain as spokeswoman for the group but
form a board of directors.

A "vote of confidence" is also planned at an upcoming meeting.

Ms Gallagher said the government's asbestos taskforce was aware of
a small number of families who could seek access to additional
emergency assistance while waiting for a final decision on
demolition or remediation of their homes.  She said taskforce head
Andrew Kefford could be asked to reconsider the government's
$10,000 support payments to families.

"I think we are also trying to be . . . as flexible as we can with
that $10,000 because there are different situations that are
coming up like people having to go into nursing homes, others that
are tenants who have had to move out and are out of pocket," she
said.

"We are trying to be very flexible but I am conscious of the need
to keep some lid on this as well financially. If we say 1000 homes
at $10,000 each, it adds up pretty quickly."

Ms Gallagher said an extension to payments could be kept within
the original budget for emergency assistance as not all households
required the full amount.

Families with children can currently access up to $14,000.

"I really can't fault the approach the Commonwealth are taking but
their processes require them to have at least a month to work
through the information we have provided them," she said.

A day after alleging that before joining Labor Ms Heseltine had
proposed to him that she stand as a Liberal candidate, Mr Hanson
said he remained committed to a bipartisan response.

Ms Heseltine denied the claims and said the Opposition Leader had
approached her.

"I have been in contact with Katy Gallagher to tell her nothing
has changed, that I remain 100 per cent committed to a timely,
fair resolution," Mr Hanson said.

"I will continue to work with all of the affected homeowners to
get a solution for them and I will continue to work with Brianna
Heseltine in a professional capacity as is appropriate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Files Wrongful Death Suit
------------------------------------------------
Law Firm Newswire reported that on June 30, Shirley Holmes of
Gretna, Louisiana, filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her
husband's passing, pointing toward alleged asbestos exposure he
suffered years before.

In the 1970's, Kermit Holmes worked at the Avondale shipyard in
Louisiana, where he was allegedly exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers. In the years that followed, he developed asbestosis and
mesothelioma lung cancer. He died in September 2013.
"His wife blames his death on this exposure, claiming that he was
not provided with appropriate safety equipment that could have
protected him from the harmful fibers," explained Richard LaGarde,
a Louisiana workplace accident and wrongful death attorney not
affiliated with the case.

Asbestos was used as insulation and a fire retardant for more than
2,000 years before its dangerous risks were confirmed. In the
1930's, workers began to bring and win lawsuits against employers
who had exposed them to the mineral fibers, but the use of the
material remained legal (though discouraged by such suits). Some
manufacturers continued to expose their employees in spite of the
risk, favoring the profitable and simple solutions the material
offered in construction.

Today, the use of asbestos is legally banned in some types of
structures. "Protective measures, including disposable clothing
covers and company showers, were designed to shield workers from
exposure, and they were readily available for use in the 1970's.
The dangers of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma were
solidly confirmed by the time Mr. Holmes worked at the Avondale
yard," LaGarde noted.

The list of defendants is lengthy: Holmes has named 3M Company,
American Employers Insurance Company, ANCO Insulations Inc.,
Avondale Industries, Avondale Shipyard, Albert Bossier Jr., CBS
Corporation, The Dox Chemical Company, Eagle Inc., Foster-Wheeler
LLC, Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Maryland Casualty Company
and Onebeacon America Insurance Company.

The suit alleges that Holmes' employers should have known of and
acted against the health risks their site posed. The case claims
that the defendants failed to reveal and concealed critical
information, including the risk of working with asbestos.
Moreover, they allegedly failed to provide sufficient and
necessary protection or proper ventilation.

Above all, the suit argues, these companies are at fault for
Holmes' death because of their reckless, improper handling and
storage of the dangerous material.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

On the Net: http://www.lagardelaw.com/

LaGarde Law Firm, P.C
3000 Weslayan, Ste. 380
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: (713) 993-0660
Toll Free: 1-866-LAGARDE

LaGarde Law Firm, P.C.
Jason M. Welborn - Of Counsel
617 S. Buchanan Street
PO Box 2053
Lafayette, LA 70501
Phone: (337) 443-4100
Toll Free: 1-866-LAGARDE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Upholds Take-Home Claim Against TVA
----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reported that in an apparent issue of first impression, the
survivors of a woman who allege she was exposed to asbestos dust
because of laundering her husband's workplace clothes have
survived a motion for summary judgment in Alabama federal court.

Barbara Bobo's husband, James Bobo, worked as a laborer for 22
years at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear
Power Plant on the Tennessee River in Alabama.

U.S. District Court Judge Lynwood Smith of the Northern District
of Alabama said that Alabama recognizes a duty owed by premises
owners to non-employees exposed to dangerous products because of
take-home exposure.

"The policy considerations in recognizing a duty to family members
of employees in take-home asbestos exposure cases does not
outweigh the foreseeability of the injury in a jurisdiction like
Alabama that relies heavily on foreseeability in tis duty of
analysis," Smith said in his ruling.

With no cases on point from Alabama, Smith found more persuasive
the cases cited by the plaintiffs from Tennessee, Illinois, New
Jersey and Louisiana, instead of cases from California, Georgia
and New York cited by the defendant.

In another apparent issue of first impression, Smith ruled that
Alabama courts would apply "substantial factor" causation, not
"but-for" causation, when there are multiple exposures to asbestos
that caused the plaintiff's injuries.

"Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to establish that
Barbara Bobo's exposure to asbestos from the Browns Ferry Nuclear
Plant was a substantial factor in bringing about her mesothelioma
and, consequently, the proximate cause of her injury," Smith said.
The TVA used thermal pipe coverings, insulation, roofing cement,
packing materials and gasket packet materials containing asbestos.

James Bobo was allegedly exposed to asbestos by sweeping up
insulation or assisting the insulators. Barbara Bobo alleged she
was exposed to an excessive amount of asbestos while laundering
her spouse's dusty work clothes at least twice a week: "She
recalled inhaling 'dust' while laundering her husband's clothes.
She described the air of the laundry room as 'foggy. I just
thought it was dust.' She also said that the air became dusty when
she dry-swept and mopped the washroom floor."

In November 2011, Bobo was diagnosed as having pleural
mesothelioma, and she died two years later.

There is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude
that James Bobo was exposed to asbestos while working at the
nuclear power plant, the judge said. "Accordingly, the plaintiffs
can prove that TVA's breach of duty was the cause in fact of
Barbara Bobo's mesothelioma," Smith said.

The judge, however, ruled that James Bobo's deposition testimony
in another Texas asbestos case is inadmissible hearsay because the
products liability defendants did not have a similar motive to TVA
to develop his testimony.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Loses Bid for Extra Fees in WR Grace Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reported that a Delaware
bankruptcy judge has denied Lukis & Annis PS a bigger slice of $16
million in attorneys' fees from an asbestos class action against
reorganized chemical giant W.R. Grace & Co., relying on the expert
opinion of a recently retired colleague.

Judith K. Fitzgerald, who retired last year as the preeminent
judge for asbestos bankruptcies, properly recommended L&A receive
$667,500 from the pot, rather than the $1.1 million it was
seeking, for the Idaho-based firm's contribution to the class
settlement, according to an order signed by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Kevin J. Carey.

Fitzgerald's report "was based upon careful consideration of the
parties' submissions and her familiarity with the background of
the bankruptcy case, as well as proper application of the
appropriate legal standard," Judge Carey wrote.

The fee dispute arose from a $60 million class action settlement,
approved by the bankruptcy court in 2009, involving some 16,000
homeowners exposed to asbestos fibers from Grace's Zonolite attic
insulation. One of the lead attorneys for the class, Darrell W.
Scott of the Scott Law Group, began working on the litigation as a
partner at L&S, but left to start his own firm in 2004.

When it came time for the bankruptcy court to divvy up the $16
million of fees after Grace closed out its decade-plus
reorganization early this year, L&S lobbied for a chunk of the
spoils, claiming it played a key role in the discovery and class
certification work Scott did more than five years before he
departed.

In a June expert report, Fitzgerald agreed to some extent, finding
that L&A provided an "indirect benefit" to the case and should be
awarded a "nominal share" of the fees awarded to Scott. She
ultimately found that the firm was entitled to 10 percent of
Scott's $6.7 million take from the larger fee pot.

A month later, L&A challenged the report, saying it put in more
than 5,600 hours of work on the case and deserves a $1.1 million
cut. Fitzgerald had given "undue deference" to the proposed
allocation of the fees put forth by Scott and the law firms that
represented the class, and L&A's take was not in proportion to
fees handed to other nonclass counsel, the firm argued.

But Judge Carey disagreed, adopting Fitzgerald's report in full,
according to the order.

Grace, based in Columbia, Maryland, entered Chapter 11 in April
2001 in the wake of more than 129,000 asbestos-related lawsuits
over its mining and manufacturing operations. In January 2011, the
bankruptcy court confirmed a joint Chapter 11 plan that includes
the establishment of two trusts to provide compensation to
thousands of people who brought personal injury and wrongful death
claims over Grace's asbestos-laden products.

A Delaware district court judge signed off on the plan in January
2012, and the Third Circuit rejected certain appeals to the
confirmation order in November 2013.

W.R. Grace is represented by Adam Paul and John Donley of Kirkland
& Ellis LLP; Roger J. Higgins of the Law Offices of Roger Higgins
LLC; and Laura Davis Jones, James E. O'Neill III and Timothy P.
Cairns of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP.

L&A is represented by David M. Fournier and Michael J. Custer of
Pepper Hamilton LLP.

The case is In re: W.R. Grace & Co. et al., case number 1:01-bk-
01139, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Forum Non Conveniens A Way to Unclog Courts
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record reported that with more than 90 percent of asbestos
litigation filed on behalf of claimants from outside Illinois,
defendants say forum non conveniens is the way to unclog the
Madison County court system.

"This is a very significant issue we have all tried to address at
various times and in various ways," said asbestos defense attorney
Lisa LaConte of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville.

She said that defendants have taken a multi-faceted approach to
curbing the growing docket that has also included seeking revision
to the court's standing order and trial docket orders.

"Overall, the notion that any case can be filed here, and that we
set such a huge number of cases for trial" is unacceptable,
LaConte said.

"I think that forum isn't the singular issue in defeating the idea
that Madison County is a magnet jurisdiction, but it certainly is
a very important one."

Asbestos defense attorney Brian Huelsmann of HeplerBroom echoed
LaConte, saying the future of the Madison County asbestos docket
relies heavily on how the court handles forum hearings.

Defendants were given an idea of how forum arguments would be
decided when Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs on May 23 denied
several defendants' motions to dismiss in four separate asbestos
lawsuits alleging lung cancer.

Judge Stobbs concluded that the defendants failed to sufficiently
argue that Illinois is inconvenient for all parties involved.

The defendants, which include 12 companies, took the county's
congested asbestos docket into consideration when arguing the
appropriateness of this jurisdiction.  The defendants also noted
the county's growing concern of forum shopping, especially with
the recent influx of lung cancer cases.

They claim the Napoli, Bern, Ripka & Shkolnik firm, which
represents these plaintiffs, is a key player in forum shopping.

The defendants contend that if all lung cancer patients were to
file asbestos lawsuits locally, the mass filings would threaten to
"overwhelm the docket, swamp the court and crowd out court
resources that would otherwise be available to actual Madison
County residents."

Shortly after Judge Stobbs denied defense motions to dismiss based
on forum non conveniens, the defendants appealed to the Fifth
District Appellate Court where a ruling is pending.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Present in North Carolina Campus
------------------------------------------------------------
Maura Devetski, writing for The Daily Tar Heel, reported that
recent construction in the quad to remove asbestos has brought
attention to the presence of the potentially hazardous material on
other parts of campus, such as in residence halls and class
buildings.

According to the University of North Carolina Department of
Housing and Residential Education, since 2009 seven residence
halls have been identified as having surfacing materials
containing asbestos.

Rick Bradley, associate director of housing and residential
education, said that students living on campus should not worry
about becoming ill from the asbestos found in their dorms.

"The asbestos is contained and does not pose a health risk,"
Bradley said.

In order to ensure the safety of students living in dorms with
asbestos, Bradley suggested a few precautions, such as refraining
from scraping or attaching items to the walls, ceiling or pipes.
He also said to keep lofted beds at least 3 feet from the ceiling,
which is residence hall policy.

"The key is to contain the asbestos and to notify individuals as
to the precautions that should be taken," Bradley said.

Junior Kristin Tajlili has lived in a residence hall each year
she's been at UNC. Two of the dorms she has lived in are on the
list of buildings tracked for asbestos.  She said she had not
heard about the issue of asbestos on campus until the recent
construction in the quad, but she is not concerned about it.
Tajlili said her only complaint is that the University did not
tell her before she chose her dorm.

"I think it would have been better to let everyone know (about the
presence of asbestos) when applying for housing, because we are
paying a lot of money to live on campus," Tajlili said.

Freshman Riley Foster lives in Hinton James and said knowledge of
the asbestos may have factored into her choice of dorm, but
ultimately, she is not worried.

"I trust Carolina enough to believe they would not let me live
somewhere I was really at risk," Foster said.

Foster also said she thinks the construction in the quad is a
positive sign of the investment the University is making to ensure
the safety of its students.

Whether asbestos is in the quad or a residence hall, Foster said
she is sure the issues with the material will be addressed.

"If there is a health risk, they'll make the investment to fix
it," Foster said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Refuses to Dismiss Fibro Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
although many asbestos lawsuits are filed by employees who allege
they were exposed to asbestos in the course of their work, some
asbestos claims are known as "take-home asbestos exposure." These
asbestos mesothelioma cases allege that the person who developed
the disease did not work with it, but was exposed to it by a loved
one who brought asbestos fibers home on his or her clothing.

One such lawsuit was filed by a former bus driver, who alleged his
wife was harmed by asbestos that he brought home on his clothing.
According to Legal Newsline, Elizabeth and Fred Herman filed a
lawsuit against Motion Control Industries, Inc. (named in the
lawsuit as Carlisle Motion Control Industries, Inc.), alleging
Elizabeth developed mesothelioma due to take-home asbestos
exposure. Fred was allegedly exposed to the asbestos through his
work with the New York City Transit Authority, especially during
his early employment when he was present during mechanical work on
bus brakes.

Elizabeth was reportedly exposed to the fibers while washing
Fred's work clothing and later diagnosed with mesothelioma.

The defendants requested summary judgment dismissing the lawsuit,
arguing that there was no evidence to show Elizabeth was exposed
to asbestos linked to the company's brake linings. A judge,
however, disagreed with the defendants and found that it was
reasonable to conclude that both Fred and Elizabeth had been
exposed to asbestos from the brake linings.

"The case turns on Mr. Nahas' [a colleague's] testimony that
Carlisle brakes were present not just at some point during his
five year tenure at the Ulmer Park Depot, but specifically during
the nine-month period that overlapped with Mr. Herman's employment
there," the judge wrote. As a result, the judge found a reasonable
inference could be drawn that Fred and, in turn, Elizabeth, had
been exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos lawsuits have been filed against hundreds of companies
alleging employees and their loved ones were harmed by exposure to
asbestos and were not properly warned about that exposure. Some
lawsuits also allege employees were not provided proper
protections or safety equipment to prevent or minimize asbestos
exposure.

Asbestos has been linked to life-threatening illnesses, including
asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fruits Beats Fibro Exposure Suit in MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that United Fruit Co.
persuaded the Pennsylvania federal court overseeing the
multidistrict asbestos litigation against dozens of defendants to
throw out a suit against it by arguing that the plaintiff had not
shown enough proof that a seaman was exposed to the carcinogenic
mineral on any vessels it owned.  U.S. District Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno granted United Fruit's motion for summary judgment, siding
with its argument.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Post Office Worker Killed by Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a woman died as a result of
asbestos exposure while working for the Post Office, an inquest
heard.

Susan Bell, 66, died at the Rowans Hospice in Portsmouth, England,
on July 13 from an asbestos-related illness, after working during
the 1960s and 1970s for the General Post Office.

In a claim made to the High Court before her death, Mrs Bell, of
Ironmill Lane, Titchfield, said is a statement that she had been
exposed to asbestos while working with telecommunication
engineers, who had to remove asbestos casing to access cables.

Senior coroner for central Hampshire Graham Short recorded a
verdict of death from industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Presents Challenge in D'Ville Demolition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Mitcham, writing for Madison Journal Today, reported that the
dilapidated old county tax assessors building has sat vacant on
Crawford W. Long Street in Danielsville, Georgia, for many years.
Now, county officials want to have it torn down and allow it to be
used as a parking lot by the Danielsville Fire Department.

"This is something I've been asked ever since I've been in office
what we're going to do with the old assessors building," said
county commission chairman Anthony Dove, who proposed Aug. 25 that
the commissioners move forward with removing the building.

However, there's one hitch in that plan. The building was
constructed with asbestos. So the county will have to hire someone
to take the structure down in a safe manner. Dove said an
inspection of the building was done two-to-three years ago.

"It (the assessors building) does have some things that would have
to be abated -- asbestos, paint," said Dove. "We'd have to get
somebody to do it."

In years gone by, the Danielsville Fire Department used the
building for training.

"It's about fell in now though," said Danielsville Fire Chief Marc
Perry. "We have gone in and done wall breaching and door
breaching, floors, ceilings, all those things in the back part of
that building. But it's a hazard now."

County commissioners agreed to seek bids from companies who could
remove the building in an environmentally safe way. The board also
agreed to have county workers take down a separate, small
structure that has no asbestos next to the Danielsville Fire
Department.

In other matters Aug. 25, the board unanimously approved Tripp
Strickland as a new member of the county industrial authority. The
vote was 4-0 in favor. Commissioner Pete Bond was absent.

The board learned that 330 students received school supplies in
the recent Madison County Area Resource Team's "Back to School
Supply Drive." Dove reported that the chief of the Carlton Fire
Department has asked county leaders to look at improving 9-1-1
communications in the Carlton area.

The board heard from Tracy Dean, chairperson of the Madison County
Board of Elections, who told the board that there is one less
runoff election than the state set in its annual schedule. She
asked if the funding that was allotted for that runoff could be
used to cover the cost of six voting machines at a total cost of
$10,000. Another $8,700 in the runoff budget will be used to cover
overtime pay in her short-staffed office. The board approved the
requests 4-0.

The board opened bids for proposals for new air conditioning units
at the government complex. But the group agreed to seek new bids,
since none of those received included "e-verify" paperwork
required by law.

The group agreed to have transfer director Sandra Webb review a
bid for a trailer at the transfer station.

Dove reported that the Environmental Protection Agency is
requiring a stormwater management plan in the Hull area. County
attorney Mike Pruett explained that according to the 2010 Census,
a portion of the Hull area is now classified with Athens as
"urban" and any stream in an urban area deemed "impaired" must
have a corresponding plan to improve the stream. Dove said he
wasn't sure what tests were used to determine the streams were
"impaired." The board agreed to go ahead and draft a memorandum of
compliance with the requirements. Meanwhile, the group will likely
get an engineer to review the situation and see if the new
requirements can be appealed. "It's disheartening really," said
Dove. "This is going to be a paperweight up there." Dove said
complying with the plan could cost $20,000 to $50,000. Industrial
authority executive director Marvin White stood at the podium and
urged people to visit the Farm Bureau website and look for
information on new federal water guidelines that are taking
effect. "Any ditch that carries water will now become state
water," said White.

A resident asked the board to consider paving a dirt portion of
Jones Matthews Road if the group moves forward with paving nearby
Moriah Church Road. Board members said they'd consider the
possibility and look at pricing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inquest Cannot Prove Pensioner's Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staffordshire Newsletter reported that an inquest into the death
of a woman who had a type of cancer linked to asbestos could not
find any evidence she was exposed.

Patricia Hodges, 71, died at her home at The Green, Milford,
Stafford, in England, on August 11, 2014.

On February 18, 2013, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma of the
lung. A post mortem revealed cause of death to be carcinomatosis,
malignant pleural mesothelioma and coronary artery atheroma.  But
no one could think of anywhere Mrs Hodges would have been exposed
to asbestos. Her husband was a metal worker and Mrs Hodges worked
in retail. South Staffordshire coroner Andrew Haigh said she may
have been unknowingly exposed.

He said: "Mesothelioma is often associated with asbestos exposure.
It can occur naturally, but percentage-wise there are very few
cases that are not linked to asbestos.

"For the great majority of her life she was a healthy woman. But
in 2013 she became horribly unwell and was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

"An examination was not able to find any asbestos fibres or
indication of it, which could have been obliterated by the
cancer."

Medical examinations discovered a tumour measuring 14cm in
thickness, covering 90% of her lung.

Before recording an open verdict, Mr Haigh said: "On the balance
of probabilities I cannot say whether this was natural or
unnatural."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Complicates NY Demolition
----------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Barone, writing for silive.com, reported that the
discovery of asbestos in one of the historic Mount Manresa
buildings, in New York, has complicated demolition work that began
at the site.

Inspectors found friable, or airborne, asbestos in piping
insulation of one of the buildings and promptly issued a stop work
order on the specific site, a Department of Environmental
Protection spokesman said.

DEP then followed standard protocol to keep the surrounding Fort
Wadsworth air clean, he said. The discovery comes after it was
initially reported that asbestos was abated from the site in 2010.

"The air is absolutely safe," the spokesman said. "When we find a
site that tests positive, we wet down the area to keep the
asbestos from becoming airborne and sanction off the area."

Under an order from the DEP, Savo Brothers, who bought the site
from the Society of Jesus for $15 million, and plan to build 250
townhouse units there, must find an asbestos abatement company to
safely remove the minerals before continuing demolition of the
affected building.

In the mean time, contractor teams are free to continue work on
other sites on the Mount Manresa campus.

Save Brothers was not available for comment, so it's uncertain how
long the discovery will delay demolition of the century-old Jesuit
retreat.

DEP said an inspector will remain on site to monitor for asbestos,
which is commonly found in older buildings, as demolition
continues.

Thus far, demolition has started on the 88-year old Shealy Hall
building, the 64-year-old Founders Hall building and the 50-year
old Bruno Hall administration building, according to Barbara
Sanchez, secretary of the Save Mount Manresa committee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Risk in Rozelle Very Low, Police Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Eryk Bagshaw, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
New South Wales Police have advised that the risk of asbestos
exposure at the site of the Rozelle explosion is very low.

An accredited hygienist found no evidence of airborne asbestos in
the area.

However, some asbestos remains within the buildings affected by
the fire.

Inspector Coffey said no timeline for the demolition had been
decided but he confirmed that the Flight Centre building contained
asbestos.

A clean up of the area is underway and police will continue to
monitor asbestos levels in the area.

"If you have concerns and live within 50 metres of the incident
site, it is recommended that when leaving your premises move away
from Darling Street," a police statement said.

Police will hold a public meeting in Balmain Town Hall to provide
updates on the exclusion zone and the asbestos risk.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found at Normandy Park Center
----------------------------------------------------------
David Ham, writing for kirotv.com, reported that results from an
inspection by Washington's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration confirm that traces of lead and asbestos are in the
paint and insulation at Normandy Park's recreation center.

The report says that the paint on the window frames near preschool
classrooms has lead.

It also found after testing, there is asbestos in the insulation
on the pipes in the breezeway of the community center connecting
to City Hall.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen and lead paint can cause seizures
or neurological damage if young children eat a lot of it.

"Not gonna be going there. Not until I know I'm sure that it's
safe," said Heather Carmody whose son was set to go back to
Taekwondo classes at the center.

Carmody added, "Just for the overall health and safety of my child
just to be around that I mean I know it's not good."

In June the city covered the windows with plastic and put notices
up to warn parents to keep kids away from the windows.

However, they are not closing the center.

"I think there is a certain level of concern," said Gary Bolma who
lives nearby.

He added, "Hopefully we aren't harmed but no way of knowing."

The building was constructed in 1956 as a school and converted
into its current use as a recreational center in 1989.

City manager Glen Akramoff will present his recommendations to fix
the problem to the city council.

His recommendations include updates to the whole building.

In total the recommendations would cost the city $684,000.

"I move to authorize the staff to move forward immediately with
required and recommended building repairs and secure a consultant
for design and project management," wrote Akramoff, in his
prepared presentation to the city council.

"I'd hate to see them spend that or the alternative might be three
times as expensive to start from scratch and build something new.
As long as it's going to be something potentially harmful at least
they're fixing it," said Bolma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delay Adds Cost for New Cultural Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Miles, writing for Slough & South Bucks Express, reported
that a multi-million pound cultural and community facility in the
town centre of Slough, in England, has delayed its opening by 10
weeks due to the discovery of asbestos.

The Curve, which is part of the towns GBP450m Heart of Slough
regeneration project, was due to open in Wellington Street in
September next year.

But a report outlining the progress of the new GBP22m facility
states the building is now likely to open in December, with the
delay costing GBP387,200.

Asbestos pipework lagging was found on the site in January in the
location of an old Age Concern day centre which was knocked down
in 2009.

Specialist contractors were brought in by the council to clear the
problem.

A Slough Borough Council spokesman said: "It is very usual to find
asbestos on site when doing building work, especially when there
has been a demolition of a previous building of an age like the
old day centre.

"Unfortunately with any find like this, it took up time and there
was a cost for removing it."

A report due to be presented to councillors at an overview and
scrutiny meeting states the cost of the delay would be GBP352,200,
while the expense of removing the asbestos was an extra GBP35,000.

Building work on The Curve, which hopes to breathe new life into
the town centre, started in April.

It will house a new library, education facilities for adults, a
cafe and performance centre.

Part of the development also includes an internal pedestrian link
between the new bus station and Mackenzie Square - providing safer
access to the town centre.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ME Bank Looking to Ensure Mr. Fluffy Awareness
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Lawson, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that ME
Bank is establishing a system to ensure borrowers know whether the
house they plan to buy is part of the Mr Fluffy asbestos cohort.

A spokesman for the bank said details were still being worked out
but it would "include at a minimum always discussing with buyers
if they've checked the contamination status before proceeding".
Other more formal checks might be considered, he said.

ME is just one of the banks caught up in the Mr Fluffy crisis,
with people unable to follow though on commitments to buy a house
because at least some banks are not lending on Mr Fluffy homes.

Buyers and sellers are reluctant to speak publicly about the
situation, but it is clear that some have been caught up in
disputes about whether the Mr Fluffy status was properly disclosed
and whether buyers can secure loans to follow through.

About 22 Mr Fluffy homes have been sold since the February 18
letter this year which sparked the crisis.

The spokesman for ME Bank said it sympathised with owners in a
difficult situation and it urged governments to resolve the
situation as quickly as possible to provide certainty.

St George Bank, asked how it was dealing with customers on the
issue, would say only that each loan was considered on a case-by-
case basis.

The Commonwealth Bank said it lent money on each property
according to security and that properties "must be readily
saleable".  It would not elaborate, but it appears Mr Fluffy homes
would not pass the risk test.

The news that the crisis has extended to mortgages comes as the
ACT government confirmed that, in the first seven days of allowing
former tenants and owners access to information about Mr Fluffy
homes, it had processed 113 requests from people concerned they
might have lived in an affected home.

Of those, five had come back positive. The five were from a former
tenant, two former owners, an existing owner and the adult child
of an existing owner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Owes $18.6MM for Tire Builder's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reported that a Dallas County
jury awarded $18.6 million to the surviving family members of a
deceased tire builder who was killed after being exposed to
cancer-causing asbestos fibers at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
subsidiary's plant in Texas, according to court documents.

The jury held that Goodyear was grossly negligent in allowing tire
builder Carl Rogers, who worked at the Goodyear unit's plant for
30 years prior to being diagnosed with mesothelioma, to be
continually exposed to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Attorneys Want Clients' Info to Remain Sealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the first motion to seal in the Garlock Sealing Technologies
bankruptcy proceeding was filed by Louisiana asbestos attorneys,
exactly one week before the deadline.

The motion was filed by the Roussel & Clement law firm on behalf
of numerous asbestos claimants.

The motion asks the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina to seal Mesothelioma Claim
Questionnaires and Supplemental Exposure Questionnaires as well as
any data produced by the Delaware Claims Processing Facility
regarding the listed individuals, which took roughly three pages
to list.

Roussel & Clement argues that the claimants would be prejudiced if
the documents are unsealed, because they supplied confidential
settlement information in the documents with the understanding
that the information would remain sealed and would not have
provided the information if they knew it could become accessible
to the public.

The documents in question contain claimants' settlement
information with asbestos bankruptcy trusts as well as solvent
defendants in the tort system.

In support of its arguments to maintain confidentiality, the
Roussel & Clement law firm discusses the 2010 Allison v Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Co. decision out of the asbestos multidistrict
litigation docket in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which the court held that
settlement documents are not discoverable.

In Allison, the court ruled that settlement documents and
bankruptcy trust information is not subject to discovery, even if
the documents reveal additional exposure, and may not be used as
impeachment evidence against a plaintiff, the motion states.

The law firm argues that settlement information is protected from
disclosure under both federal and state law.

In Allison, the MDL court concluded that discovery of settlement
documents would violate Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,
which provides that "evidence of a compromise of a claim, which is
disputed as either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove
liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount," the
motion states.

Roussel & Clement explains that the purpose of this rule is to
prevent prejudice against settling parties who may have settled in
an effort to avoid litigation, which, therefore, promotes public
policy of encouraging compromise.

In other words, the law firm argues that the federal rule
recognizes the "strong" public policy encouraging settlements --
meaning if the settlement information is disclosed, it would
violate that public policy.

"Public policy favors settlements in the tort system," the motion
states. "Courts recognize that reasonable expectations of
confidentiality are essential to promoting settlements and will
deny a request for disclosure of a competitor's settlement
agreement because of 'the chilling effect an order of disclosure
of agreements entered into with the understanding of
confidentiality would have on future settlement negotiations in
other litigation.'"

Furthermore, Roussel & Clement cites the United States Supreme
Court, saying it does not allow the bankruptcy court to be used as
a discovery tool.

"The United States Supreme Court has made clear that filing for
bankruptcy does not entitle a debtor to substitute a new legal
regime to govern its liabilities: 'Bankruptcy courts are not
authorized in the name of equity to make wholesale substitution of
underlying law controlling the validity of creditors'
entitlements, but are limited to what the Bankruptcy Code itself
provides,'" the motion states.

The law firm also notes specific state codes in Louisiana, the
firm's practicing state, which discourage or even forbid discovery
of "privileged or irrelevant" information -- including settlement
documents because they are protected under the attorney-client
privilege.

Motions for information in the Garlock proceeding to remain sealed
were ordered after U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., ruled
in favor of Legal Newsline on July 23 when he concluded that
evidence alleging fraud on the part of asbestos attorneys should
not have been sealed.

Judge Cogburn, a President Barack Obama-appointee who took the
bench in 2011, concluded that sealing documents and witness
testimony is the exception, not the rule, to handling alleged
"confidential" information. As a result, he reversed Judge Hodges'
denial of the motions seeking access to evidence admitted under
seal and remanded the proceedings back to the bankruptcy court
with instructions on how to handle the unsealing process.

"As a gatekeeper, a judge must consider sealing as the exception
to the rule, give the public notice of its intent to seal, require
counsel to provide valid reasons for such extraordinary relief,
and then explain that decision as well as the reason why less
drastic alternatives were not employed," Judge Cogburn wrote.

As a result, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges released an order
stating that any party wishing to keep documents under seal must
file a motion to seal by Sept. 11.

The motions to seal must identify and describe each document or
testimony it believes should be sealed or redacted and the reasons
the materials should be kept confidential. They must also explain
why no means less restrictive than sealing are available and how
long the materials should be maintained under seal.

Parties opposing any motion to seal must file their objections by
Oct. 6 and are required to identify the source of its right of
access with respect to each document or testimony.

Any sealed evidence that is not the subject of a motion to seal
will be unsealed "shortly" after the Sept. 11 deadline.

The action arises out of Judge Hodges' Jan. 10 ruling in favor of
Garlock that ordered the gasket manufacturer to put $125 million
in an asbestos trust -- roughly $1 billion less than what
plaintiffs' representatives felt was proper -- to satisfy its
anticipated liability to current and future asbestos claimants. In
his decision, Judge Hodges cited evidence that he said showed
asbestos attorneys were withholding evidence while pursuing claims
against Garlock.

The evidence of alleged misconduct by plaintiffs' attorneys led
Garlock to file lawsuits claiming it had been victimized by fraud,
deceit and racketeering when settling asbestos plaintiffs' claims
with Garlock.

Judge Hodges ruled that the amount of previous awards and
settlements paid by the company in the civil justice system were
not reliable because plaintiffs' attorneys had withheld exposure
evidence in order to maximize recovery against Garlock.

"This occurrence was a result of the effort by some plaintiffs and
their lawyers to withhold evidence of exposure to other asbestos
products and to delay filing claims against bankrupt defendants'
asbestos trusts until after obtaining recoveries from Garlock,"
Judge Hodges wrote.

Garlock brought evidence to the bankruptcy hearing demonstrating
that the last 10 years of its participation in the asbestos
litigation system "was infected by the manipulation of exposure
evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers."

"It appears certain that more extensive discovery would show more
extensive abuse," Judge Hodges continued. "But that is not
necessary because the startling pattern of misrepresentation that
has been shown is sufficiently persuasive."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flooding Leads to Fibro Concerns at Court House
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Silver, writing for Fox23.com, reported that almost a week
after it flooded, the basement of the Tulsa County Courthouse, in
Oklahoma, remains closed and jury duty continues to be postponed.

FOX23's Ian Silver found out part of what is slowing things down
is that in addition to drying things out, they have to wait for
air quality tests to come back.

A lot is still up in the air.

A week ago, there were several inches of water in the basement. It
flowed from pipes in the wall and ceiling in some areas, others
just saw water flowing in on the ground.

"And this, of course, is court services, which was hardest hit.
'Can we go in there and take a look?'" said Dan Belding, director
of maintenance for the Tulsa County Building Operations.

After a week?

"Heating this area up. It dries it out. We've used the air
conditioning with the ability for the air conditioning to remove
moisture," he said.

Before they start repairing carpet, walls and furniture, "it takes
a while because you have to have containment areas and they have
to be air quality tested before we can move on to the next
containment area," said Belding.

He said with a building that's almost 60 years old when there's a
flood it's not just moisture and mold you have to worry about.

"There is asbestos in this building. As far as I know, we have not
had an asbestos situation yet," he said.

That will be part of the air quality testing.

None of this is cheap, but Belding did not have a rough estimate
of the costs and won't until they get the tests back and know what
they have to fix.

Who will end up paying for it is also not decided, yet.

"I can't answer the question now. I can't answer that. I have no
idea. Our insurance company's been here. I've had insurance
representatives from other people get ahold of us. But who, what
and how much I could not tell you," he said.

FOX23 found out the first round of air quality tests came back
good, but they have to test several more areas before they can
decide whether jury duty will resume.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Fibro Compensation Scheme Short
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Binsted, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
the asbestos compensation body funded by James Hardie may need to
draw on a taxpayer-backed loan arrangement to pay asbestos victims
despite James Hardie showering its own investors with US$556
million in dividends in the past two years.

Under a legal agreement, James Hardie pays a set amount every year
to the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF) to compensate
victims suffering from asbestos-related diseases.

That amount can run to many millions of dollars and is set at 35
per cent of its operating cash flow.  The financial health of the
fund is assessed annually by actuaries, KPMG, and in its latest
report KPMG increased the "central estimate" for liabilities by
10.4 per cent to $1.9 billion.

That prompted a warning that Hardie's planned contributions alone
may not be sufficient to cover the fund's costs for claims and it
may need to tap a government-backed loan set up in 2010 when there
were concerns that the global financial crisis could affect the
fund's sustainability.

The NSW and federal governments agreed to provide the loan, of up
to $320 million, for the AICF if contributions from James Hardie
were insufficient to meet claims.

CIMB analyst Andrew Scott, in a research note, warned of a
potential public backlash if the company drew on government funds
given housing markets are now improving.

"Our forecasts now suggest that further drawdowns of the
government loan by the AICF are likely to be required from
financial year 2016 . . . we believe a deficit may be sustained
for some time," Mr Scott told clients.

On CIMB's numbers, the valuation of the asbestos liability has
increased to $895 million, or $2.02 per share, and the AICF is
forecast to be short $82 million in 2015-16.

"On our modeling . . . [the AICF will have] insufficient funds to
meet all expected commitments in FY16 and would see a further
drawdown on loans from the NSW and federal governments," Mr Scott
told clients.

"The fund may be unable to cover claims costs purely from James
Hardie contributions for a number of years."

The fact that James Hardie paid US$556 million in dividends in the
2013 and 2014 financial years raised the ire of independent
senator Nick Xenophon.

"The bottom line is if James Hardie can afford $500 million to
give to shareholders it can find the money to give to dying
victims of their product," Mr Xenophon said.

"If James Hardie doesn't come to the table they deserve the scorn
of the Australian public. They have got through the GFC."

The situation comes as the company's top executive received a
substantial pay increase last year. According to James Hardie's
2014 annual report, chief executive Louis Gries received US$11.7
million in total pay in 2014, up from US$7.9 million.

The AICF was formed in 2006 after an agreement between James
Hardie and the NSW government.  The loan facility has been used
twice and was quickly repaid, but the intention of the provision
appears to have been ensuring James Hardie could get through the
global financial crisis.  US housing starts, on a rolling 12-month
basis, have risen from their GFC bottom of around 554,000 and they
are running at 974,000 for the year to July.

James Hardie is spending US$200 million a year over the next three
years expanding its plant capacity in the US, where the building
materials supplier derives 80 per cent of its sales.

James Hardie spokesman Sean O'Sullivan said the company had just
contributed US$113 million to the fund and he stressed that the
AICF is an entirely separate entity. He said it is important that
the integrity of the Final Funding Agreement is upheld.

"It delivers a level of certainty which is why investors are
comfortable investing in James Hardie," Mr O'Sullivan said. "It
balances the needs of all stakeholders including shareholders,
claimants and future claimants."

According to the KPMG actuarial report, the number of claims in
2013-14 came in at 608, 12.6 per cent above expectations.

But CIMB says that the key driver of the liability increase was
the 23 per cent jump in expensive mesothelioma claims to 370. In
2013-14 the average size of mesothelioma claims was almost three
times that of the next largest disease category.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Affirms Ruling Allowing Doc Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Ohio appellate court has
affirmed a trial court's ruling allowing access to portions of a
document prepared by an asbestos defendant's national counsel,
agreeing that attorney-client privilege was superseded by the
plaintiffs' right to access the information.

In the Sept. 4 opinion, the Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals for
Cuyahoga County opined that the information sought by the
plaintiffs was not provided anywhere else and that there was no
living person who possessed knowledge of the requested details.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Property Owners Sentenced for CAA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Francis Mills, 64, the owner of more than a dozen properties
in Malone, New York, and Terrance Allen, 57, the maintenance
manager of Mills' properties, were sentenced on Sept. 8, 2014, by
U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy to serve 21 months each in
prison for conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act standards for
the safe removal of asbestos during renovations of three of Mills'
properties, for releasing asbestos into the environment and
failing to notify the authorities, all in violation of the Clean
Air Act's asbestos work practice standards, and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Mills' and Allen's prison sentences will be followed by two years
of supervised release.  In addition, Mills must also pay a $25,000
fine and a $300 crime victim special assessment fee.

On Jan. 21, 2014, Mills and Allen, both of Malone, New York,
pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate CERCLA.
Mills also pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly violating
CERCLA for failing to immediately report the release of more than
a pound of asbestos from properties owned by Mills.  In addition
to the conspiracy, Allen pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly
violating CERCLA.  Mills owned the buildings from which more than
260 linear feet of pipe wrap containing asbestos had been removed
by one of Mills' employees.  Mills and Allen directed that
employee to remove the asbestos pipe wrap from 458 East Main
Street, 144 Elm Street, and 100 Elm Street, all properties owned
by Mills, and managed by Allen, who oversaw the asbestos removal
work.

As part of the plea, Mills and Allen admitted that that they
knowingly failed to report to the National Response Center the
release of asbestos, in the form of thermal system insulation, or
"pipe wrap," that had been removed from the basement of buildings
owned and operated by John Mills, as soon as they knew of the
release.  They also admitted to illegally removing and disposing
of more than 260 linear feet of pipe wrap containing asbestos.
Mills and Allen directed an employee to remove the pipe wrap
containing asbestos without warning him or giving him adequate
personal protective equipment.  They transported and caused others
to transport that pipe wrap, which was in open bags, in the open
bed of a pickup truck.  They further admitted that they conspired
together to violate CERCLA.  The asbestos pipe wrap was deposited
by the defendants in a UHaul-style box truck owned by Mills and a
shed maintained by the Malone Department of Public Works in an
effort to conceal the material from authorities.

The Clean Air Act requires that owners of public buildings that
contain asbestos follow federally established work practice
standards to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos.  The
required standards include providing notice to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before starting asbestos
removal, adequately wetting the asbestos during the removal and
before disposal, and properly disposing of the asbestos at an EPA-
approved disposal site.

The investigation was conducted by the Environmental Protection
Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the New York State
Department of Labor Asbestos Control Bureau with assistance from
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the
Malone Police Department and the Malone Department of Public
Works.  The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Lana N. Pettus
and Gary N. Donner, paralegal Puja Moozhikkattu and litigation
support specialist Elga Ozols of the Environmental Crimes Section
of the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and Natural
Resources Division.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Linked to Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Wong, writing for Imperial College London, reported that some
cases of the lung disease idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) may
be linked with asbestos exposure, according to the results of a
new study.

If confirmed, the findings would mean that current treatment
strategies need to be altered as people with a history of asbestos
exposure are not currently able to access new treatments for IPF.

The research, which was presented at the European Respiratory
Society's International Congress, provides new mortality data for
IPF, asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Asbestosis is the name given to the lung disease developed by
people with a known history of exposure to asbestos. The symptoms
and presentation of this disease can be identical to IPF; the only
difference between the two diseases is whether a patient knows
about their exposure to asbestos. People with asbestosis are not
currently eligible for new treatments for IPF, despite the fact
that these treatments work on curing an identical disease.

Researchers have suggested that a proportion of IPF may be due to
unknown exposure to asbestos. They analysed mortality rates for
IPF, asbestosis and mesothelioma across England and Wales. Data
were obtained from the Office of National Statistics on the annual
number of deaths due to IPF, mesothelioma and asbestos for the
period 1974-2012, broken down by age, sex and region.

The analysis revealed national and regional correlations between
the three diseases, which supports the theory that a proportion of
IPF cases are due to unknown exposure to asbestos. If this
asbestos exposure was known, it would be likely that these
patients were diagnosed with asbestosis rather than IPF.

There were also high rates of IPF deaths in particular regions in
the northwest and southeast of England, which has a history of
shipyard work and therefore potential exposure to asbestos dust.

Lead researcher, Dr Carl Reynolds from the National Heart and Lung
Institute at Imperial College London, said: "The findings are
consistent with the hypothesis that a proportion of IPF cases are
likely to be caused by unknown exposure to asbestos.  More
research is needed in this area, particularly as patients known to
have asbestos exposure are not currently considered to be
candidates for new treatments for IPF and this may be
inappropriate."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Napoli Law Firm Addresses Reputation Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the Napoli, Bern, Ripka, Shkolnik law firm held a meeting
with asbestos attorneys to discuss future litigation plans and
former mistakes, particularly with the firm's initial approach to
filing asbestos lung cancer cases in Madison County, Ill.

"We are committed to bringing the practice to a manageable and a
realistic level," said Marc Bern, senior partner with the firm.

Bern was joined by Ethan Horn, asbestos attorney with the Napoli
firm; Patrick Haines, head of the Madison County asbestos office;
and Brad Smith, head of the bankruptcy trust team of the Napoli
firm.

The meeting's primary purpose was to express the firm's intentions
to change the reputation it developed after filing a mass number
of asbestos lung cancer cases after only two years litigating in
Madison County -- the nation's epicenter of asbestos litigation.

"We continue to hear the almost-panic in some people's voices over
the lung cancer docket," Haines said.

The New York-based Napoli firm opened an office in Madison County
in 2012. Just one year later, the firm dominated the docket,
representing roughly 32 percent of the new case filings. Of those
525 cases, more than 90 percent of those cases were lung cancer
claims.

Haines agreed his firm files a larger number of lung cancer cases
than other asbestos plaintiffs firms, explaining that the firm
obtained an influx of lung cancer cases all at once a few years
ago, which resulted in a mass lung cancer filing last year.

Since then, the Napoli firm has been steadily rejecting and
selecting which claims it will represent. Haines said that the
initial wave of work is complete, allowing for a drop in filing
rates.

"We chewed through that work that was all there in one chunk," he
said.

The firm admitted that it erred in its initial filing practices.

"I admit, Bern said, "in the past couple of years, there have been
some mistakes that have been made. But we've also done a lot of
things right."

Bern explained that because the firm received so many cases so
quickly, it had to file them before it had a chance to thoroughly
complete evaluation and review.

However, those cases are now being reviewed properly, but could
take some time, he said.

"I can't tell you that tomorrow all these cases will be resolved
on our part," Bern said. "It's going to take a while. There were a
lot of cases that were filed relatively quickly."

In fact, the firm used its recent decrease in case filings as an
example that it intends to improve the way it is perceived.

As of June 30, Madison County has seen 656 new cases filed in its
asbestos docket, a drop from last year's record of 793 mid-year
filings.

Of the new filings, the Napoli firm has filed about 19 percent of
the total filings, or about 124 new cases -- a drop from previous
years.

Bern said he hopes people can recognize that the firm is committed
to improvement by the decrease of the filings.

Haines added that the firm only filed 40 or 50 cases in January
and every month since then has gone down.

"That's not because we are giving up on the firm or we have
surrendered our position," Haines said. "It's because we filed
what we had."

He promised that the filing numbers from 2012 and 2013 will not
come from the Napoli firm again, saying the "floodgates" that
"appeared" to be open are now closing.

Bern added that the firm plans to handle the cases the same way
many other asbestos firms handled these cases in the past, by
filing more consistent, lower numbers after thorough review.

As for the cases that have already been filed, the firm made it
clear that it does not want to be involved in unnecessary lengthy
and costly litigation -- meaning the attorneys want to resolve
disputes over who should be in the case or where the case should
be tried now rather than by filing motions back and forth.

"Ultimately, whatever parties that should be in the case, will be
in the case," Bern said. "Those who shouldn't be in the case,
won't be in the case."

"If we don't need you in the case," Horn confirmed, "we don't
necessarily want you in the case."

Defendants that don't have merit in the cases will be voluntarily
dismissed, Bern and Haines confirmed.

"Many of these cases will have a large number of defendants that
will get dismissed," Haines said. "I would rather do that now than
later."

"[W]e all have way more work than we can handle, and we don't need
a way breaking out where we just fling motions one after another,"
he added.

The two encouraged defense attorneys to come to them personally to
take a look at the cases and make progress rather than address
their concerns in the courtroom.

"I want to again confirm our pledge that that's the direction
we're heading," Horn said about the resolving cases earlier if
possible.

However, the firm is also prepared to address disputes in court
when the parties do not agree, noting that it still believes some
defendants are properly included in certain asbestos lawsuits.

Haines added that there are several lung cancer cases set for
trial in February and March, but he said there is a better way of
resolving these cases than trying them to verdict.

"We're not here to get a bunch of verdicts or drive anybody into
bankruptcy," Haines said. "That's not our plan."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Penn Plans to Remove Fibro in School
----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Kraft, writing for WFMZ.com, reported that the East
Pennsylvania School District in Lehigh County plans to remove
construction debris containing asbestos that the district buried
in the woods behind one of its elementary schools last year.

Several dump truck loads of debris are buried less than a quarter
mile west of Wescosville Elementary School in Lower Macungie
Township.

Getting rid of it is going to cost the school district an
estimated $18,435.

Dr. J. Michael Schilder, the district's new superintendent, said
the buried asbestos does not pose a threat to students at the
school or to anyone else in the community. But he wants it
excavated, hauled away and disposed of properly.

East Penn officials said they don't know who dumped the material
behind the school in the summer of 2013, but it wasn't done by the
school district.

However, they do know that unidentified school district
administrators authorized burying that construction debris on the
same site in the autumn of 2013.

"It's residential siding," said school board president Alan
Earnshaw. "It's not school construction debris. Our school
buildings are all brick faced."

Earnshaw suggested it probably was dumped during the summer, when
school was not in session, and at night.

"It was debris that was brought onto school property from an
unknown location and unlawfully deposited on our premises," he
said. "No witnesses have come forward telling us they saw the
dumping happening."

"To this day, we do not know where it came from," said Schilder.

He said last fall school district personnel buried the
construction debris in a hole that had been lined with clay, in
case asbestos materials, such as siding or roofing, were in that
debris.

"In my humble opinion, I think a mistake was made in deciding to
bury it, and what I'm attempting to do is correct the mistake,"
said the superintendent. "The individuals who made the decision to
bury it no longer are employed with the district."

District officials would not say who authorized burying that
material on school property. The district apparently used its own
personnel and equipment to bury it.

Schilder, who became East Penn's superintendent earlier this
summer, said he just learned about the buried asbestos about a
month ago.  He found out about it because Wescosville's principal
wanted to install a nature trail through those woods and but kept
being told it couldn't be done because of the proximity to that
material.

"You don't want to dig down into where asbestos is buried," said
Schilder.

Excavating asbestos

The school board voted 8-1 to pay $17,535 to ALM Abatement
Services of Coopersburg to remove and properly dispose of soil and
associated rubbish that has been contaminated with "non-friable"
asbestos.

While asbestos fibers can cause cancer if inhaled, those fibers
are less likely to be released in non-friable asbestos. Friable
asbestos can be crumbled by hand, releasing the hazardous fibers
into the air.

The amount of construction debris and soil to be excavated is
estimated to be 26 feet wide, 30 feet long and about four feet
deep. It is buried under eight to 10 inches of clay.

In addition to transite siding made with asbestos, the waste
material is believed to be a mix of slate, insulation and general
garbage.

The district estimates at least six tri-axle dump trucks will be
needed to remove all the material. It's expected to take up to
five days, depending on the weather.

If more than six truckloads of asbestos waste material must be
removed, East Penn will pay an additional $1,600 for each 15-yard
container, plus an additional $320 per dump truck load for
additional fill needed to close the pit.

The superintendent said the district received three quotes for the
abatement and ALM's quote financially was the best.

After learning about the buried debris, Schilder had a
representative from ALM survey the area and do "some preliminary
quick digging to see if he could reach any of the material." He
said that man was able to reach the debris. He took samples that
were analyzed and confirmed there is some asbestos siding.

The ALM representative told him that, because of the way it was
buried in clay, the material poses no hazard to students or
anybody else in the community, as well as no hazard to
groundwater. "However, it was not the proper way to handle
construction material like that."

The district also will pay $600 to TCI Environmental Services of
Wilkes-Barre to have an inspector on site during the excavation
and to collect samples of the material for laboratory analysis.

All work will be performed in accordance with applicable federal,
state and local regulations pertaining to the removal,
transportation and disposal of materials containing asbestos,
according to the ALM contract.

One dissenting vote

Board member Lynn Donches, who voted against the contracts,
unsuccessfully argued that an investigation should be done to
determine who dumped the material on school property before it is
excavated.

"To remove it before an investigation could be tampering with
evidence," she said.

She also said if an investigation determines who is responsible,
those individuals could be made to pay for the costs of the
asbestos remediation.

Earnshaw said even if the district could determine who dumped the
material on its property, the cost of prosecuting such a case
would far exceed the cost of the remediation project, "with no
guarantee we would be able to recover damages or legal fees."

When questioned by Donches, Atty. Marc Fisher, the board's
solicitor, said Earnshaw's estimate of the cost to prosecute such
a case probably was accurate.

Earnshaw said Donches was arguing it was more proper for the
district to leave the hazardous materials on school property "for
some unknown period of time, in the hopes that someone could be
cited for a very minor misdemeanor of dumping on public property."

After the meeting, Schilder said that issue already had been
reviewed with Fisher, who determined there was no indication of
any criminal intent "other than the fact that somebody dumped the
stuff there to begin with."

He added that the district officials who authorized burying the
material certainly weren't doing it with criminal intent. "In my
opinion, it was just a mistake."

"Is there a permit on file for the burying of that waste?" asked
Donches.

Schilder said there was not, but added permits will be secured as
part of the contracts with ALM and TCI. He also said state
environmental officials will monitor the removal of the material.

Schilder said the police were not contacted about investigating
how the material got there.

Said the superintendent: "My goal is to get it out; to get rid of
it."

Fisher told Donches that as items are removed, "Somebody is going
to be collecting and notating what was removed and the amount that
was removed." But Earnshaw said it seems highly unlikely that
circumstantial evidence will be found in the debris that links it
to any specific construction site.

Donches is concerned there could be legal ramifications for the
district because asbestos is an environmental hazard. "If the
board moves ahead with this, we are putting ourselves at risk,"
she claimed.

But board member Waldemar Vonovskis said no one on the school
board knew anything about the asbestos until about two weeks ago.
He said Schilder is doing "the exact right thing" by encouraging
the board to approve properly removing the material.

Donches also opposed the contract being open-ended. But Schilder
said any asbestos abatement has to be open-ended "because you want
the job done right. You don't want the asbestos abatement folks
leaving the project and it's not completed properly."

Resident also concerned

At the beginning of the board meeting, East Penn resident Chris
Donatelli asked the board what happened and why no one heard about
it sooner.

He said he's been attending school board meetings for quite awhile
and never heard anything about asbestos near the elementary
school. He said he also scanned minutes of board meetings but
could find nothing about it.

Donatelli wanted to know if there are any concerns for the
students and the staff at that school.

"I don't know if you can answer that now," said Donatelli to the
school board.

"These are not interactive sessions but I'm sure if it comes up
during the debate, it will be very informative," said Earnshaw.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remove Fibro From Schools, UK Mom Pleads
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Cheston, writing for London Evening Standard, reported that a
woman with terminal cancer caused by exposure to asbestos when she
was a pupil called for the deadly substance to be removed from all
school buildings.

Mother-of-two Sarah Bowman, 46, spoke out after winning a
substantial payout from Brent council, in England.  Ms Bowman, of
Wembley, was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in August 2009
and told by doctors that she had less than a year to live.  She
was told her illness -- a rare form of the disease affecting the
lining of the abdomen rather than the lungs -- was caused by
exposure to asbestos dust at a school being refurbished three
decades ago. But after surgery to remove the tumour, she went into
remission -- highly unusual in such cases.

Ms Bowman was a pupil at William Gladstone High School in Brent
be-tween 1979 and 1984, when the ceilings of the classrooms and
corridors contained asbestos. She told how pupils would push up
ceiling tiles, and how workmen carrying out electrical maintenance
would send asbestos dust falling onto the floor and pupil's
clothes.

Documents detailing the case were lodged at the High Court. Brent
council has now agreed a substantial settlement to cover her
suffering and financial loss. It acknowledged that she lives in
the shadow of knowing the illness may return. She also suffered
depression and was left unable to work.

Ms Bowman backed calls for ministers to identify and remove
asbestos from school buildings. A recent Parliamentary report has
estimated 75 per cent of schools in England and Wales contain the
material. Speaking for the first time about her ordeal, she said:
"Although I am in remission, I am petrified one day the cancer
will return.

"To be told I had terminal illness and less than a year to live
was too much to comprehend.

"I was devastated to find exposure to asbestos decades ago caused
my illness and I hope more is done to ensure people are protected
in future. I am relieved Brent admitted liability. I'm looking
forward to returning to work and getting some normality back."

Her solicitor, Joanne Jefferies of Irwin Mitchell, said: "We've
repeatedly called for a programme to identify public buildings
containing asbestos and a schedule to remove it." The Commons
education committee has heard that up to 300 former pupils die
each year from exposure to asbestos at school in the Sixties and
Seventies.

Michael Pavey, deputy leader of Brent council, said: "We are
delighted Miss Bowman's cancer has not returned and we send our
best wishes. The claim has been settled with her agreement."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defendants Look for Lawyers Who Can Make Deals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that in-house
attorneys at DuPont Co. and other companies told an asbestos
litigation conference that they prize trial attorneys who have
shown they can drive settlement talks to quickly end asbestos
suits, more than those merely with expertise in the subject matter
of asbestos.

Attorneys who have developed relationships with judges, the
plaintiffs bar and even other co-defendants and who can push for
quick resolutions are increasingly sought-after in the often-
decades-long asbestos litigation across the country, a panel of
in-house counsel told attendees of an asbestos conference.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deceased Worker's Testimony Barred in Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reported that testimony given in an asbestos products-liability
lawsuit by a maintenance worker at a ketchup bottling plant is
inadmissible in a workers' compensation lawsuit, the Ohio Supreme
Court has ruled.

Plaintiff Donald Burkhart died from mesothelioma, a cancer in the
linings of the lungs, stomach and other organs related to asbestos
exposure. In a deposition, Burkhart testified regarding his
exposure to asbestos from various manufacturers. After his death,
his wife, Mary Lou Burkhart, filed a workers' compensation claim
against his employer H.J. Heinz Co. for allegedly exposing him to
asbestos from his work in a boiler room with pile insulation
containing asbestos. Burkhart worked for Heinz for 40 years until
his retirement in 1986.

Justice Terrence O'Donnell opined that Burkhart's deposition
testimony was not admissible in the workers' compensation case
because the products-liability defendants did not have the same
motive as H.J. Heinz to develop Burkhart's testimony.

"Each asbestos manufacturer sought to disprove that [Burkhart] 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," Justice O'Donnell wrote.

Under Ohio Rule of Evidence 804(B)(1), testimony from a witness
who is not available is not precluded as hearsay if the defendant
or a defendant's "predecessor-in-interest had the opportunity to
examine the declarant in the prior proceeding" and had a motive
similar to the defendant's motive "in the present proceeding to
develop the former testimony by direct, cross, or redirect
examination," the court said.

Hearsay testimony is not admissible from earlier court proceedings
unless it was developed by the defendant or another party with
which the defendant is in privity through a legal "right, title,
interest or obligation," Justice O'Donnell continued. Otherwise,
it's unfair to impose liability on the basis of a witness'
testimony that the defendant did not question, he said.

While some federal courts have found that privity is not required
to establish a predecessor-in-interest relationship, "we view the
requirement that the examiner have had a similar motivation to be
a further restriction in the admissibility of former testimony,
not an expansion of the common law rule that permits the admission
of former testimony against parties unrelated to the prior
action," Justice O'Donnell wrote.

In dissent, Justice Paul Pfeifer said he would have adopted the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's standard for what
constitutes a predecessor in interest from the 1978 decision in
Lloyd v. American Export Lines Inc.: "If it appears that in the
former suit a party having a like motive to cross-examine about
the same matters as the present party would have, was accorded an
adequate opportunity for such examination, the testimony may be
received against the present party.'"


                              *********

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  * * *