CAR_Public/141010.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 202

                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Court Not Yet Ruled on Bid for Leave to Appeal
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
ACME REFINING: Faces "Barragan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into Stipulation of Settlement
AMEDISYS INC: 5th Cir. Reinstates PERSM Class Suit

ANTENNA STAR: Sued in M.D. Pa. Over Violation of FLSA & PWPCL
ANZ BANKING: Faces Class Suit Over Bad Financial Planning Advice
APPLE INC: iPhone Users Get Class Action Settlement Checks
ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Loses Bid to Nix Discrimination Suit
ARCOUB & ARCOUB: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

AT&T MOBILITY: Settles TCPA Class Action for $45 Million
ATLAS ROOFING: "Seaberg" Suit Transferred From Florida to Georgia
AURORA LOAN: Court Okays Amended Class Settlement Notice
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Stays California Class Action
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Delaware Class Litigation On-Going

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Class Member Appeals Final Judgment
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015
AVON PRODUCTS: Judge Tosses FCPA China Bribe Class Action
AWAKENED ALTERNATIVES: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Violation of FLSA
BEVERAGE WORKS: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BOLT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Teledyne Merger Deal
BUDDY ALBIN: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Roberts" Suit Claims
CHICAGO-KENT: Appeals Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Faces "Dennison" Class Action in New Jersey
CHINA GREEN: Nevada Court Gave Final Approval to Settlement

CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Samuel" Suit Over Faulty Steering System
CLASSIC RESIDENCE: Removes "Victoriano" Suit to S.D. California
DELAWARE STATE UNIV: Atty. Fees and Costs Awarded in "Foltz" Case
DIRECTV LLC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
DIREXION SHARES: Faces Stoopler, Pfeiffer and Longman Actions

DIREXION SHARES: Settlement Accepted in Schwack and William Cases
DLP ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
DS SERVICES: Paid $2MM in Connection With Class Action
DS SERVICES: Expects to Pay $2MM to Settle Wage and Hour Suits
EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suit in Virginia Alleging Violations of FCRA

FAMILY DOLLAR: Removes "Randall" Suit to Florida District Court
FONCIA: Faces Class Action in France Over "Illegal" Rent Fees
FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Sued in Virginia Over Sale to TowneBank
GENERAL MOTORS: "Williams" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 57,000+ Cars Over Wiring Problem

GRANITE FACTORY: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Inkjet Class Counsel Awarded $1.9MM Fees
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Responds to Dismissal Bid
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Shareholder Wants Lead Plaintiff Named
INNOVIS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Workers Claim

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces "Rausch" Liability Suit in N.D. Florida
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Hearing to Dismiss Class Action Reset to Nov.
ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Says Class Suit Exposure Won't Exceed $20MM
JP MORGAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Loeza" Class Action
KINGSUN USA: Sent Unsolicited Fax, Morgan & Curtis Suit Says

KOREAN AIRLINES: January 16 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
LANNETT COMPANY: Plaintiff Voluntary Dismisses Class Action
LILY MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating TCPA in South Carolina
LLOYDS: Investors File US-Style Class Action Over 2008 HBOS Deal
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Says Appeal in "Alkhoury" Case Has No Merit

MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Fultz" Suit to Tennessee District Court
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Appeals Court Affirmed "Camasta" Case Dismissal
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Court Dismisses Class Claims in "Johnson" Suit
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Faces "Salerno" Class Action in California
METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES: Sued in Ohio Over Breach of Labor Laws

MORGAN STANLEY: Seeks Dismissal of Force-Placed Insurance Suit
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Global Cash
NEW ARCHVIEW: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
OCEAN POWER: Securities Class Actions in Preliminary Stages
PELLA CORP: "Saltzman" Suit Moved From Illinois to South Carolina

PEPCO HOLDINGS: Entered Into MOU in Merger Class Suit
PERRY ELLIS: Mediation Scheduled for Fiscal 2015 3rd Quarter
PHARMACEUTICAL INNOVATIONS: FDA Seeks Permanent Injunction
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Class Action Over Forfeiture Machine
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Fleisher's Summary Judgment Bid

PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Tiger's Summary Judgment Motion
PIXAR ANIMATION: Faces Class Action Over Sherman Act Violations
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Tjokronolo" Deodorant Packaging Suit
QUINTAIROS PRIETO: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal in "Brookler" Case Fully Briefed

RADIOSHACK CORP: Class Cert. Denied in "Ordonez" Case
RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Further Action by Appeals Court
RADIOSHACK CORP: "Fluctuating Worksheet" Method Violates Pa. Law
RADIOSHACK CORP: 7th Circuit Vetoes Class Action Settlement
RESTORATION HARDWARE: $9.2MM in Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Atty

RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Gelato Fino Tartufo Products
RITE WAY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Demorris" Suit Says
SANSOO NORTH: Faces "Jaimes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SELECT FOOD: Recalls Newman's Parmesan & Roasted Garlic Dressing
STARLINE TOURS: Removes "Harp" Suit to California District Court

STATE FARM: Removes "Silcox" Insurance Suit to S.D. California
SUPER ASIA: Recalls EBM Click Cumin Biscuit Due to Undeclared Milk
SWEET ART: Recalls Chocolate Chip Macaroon Due to Undeclared Milk
SYNGENTA CORP: Sued Over Loss of China's Corn Export Markets
TEMPLETON RYE: Class Action Over Misleading Ad Can Proceed

TIRE DON: Faces "Camilo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TOTAL WEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Investment Losses
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in C.D. California Over Defective Dashboards
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Defect in Tacoma Vehicles
TOYS R US: Recalls Children's Sandals Due to Choking Hazard

TRANS UNION: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Class Suit Says
TRIMFOOT CO: Recalls Children's Soft-Soled Sneakers
TWIN PINES: District Court Dismisses "Stinson" Class Action
ULTA SALON: Defending Against Employment Class Action Lawsuit
UNILEVER US: Faces "Bimont" Suit Over Deodorant Packaging

UNITED STATES: Immigration Case Obtains Class Certification
VERIS GOLD: Reached $3.6MM Deal in Former Employees' Class Action
VIOLIN MEMORY: Dismissal Motion in IPO Suit Briefed and Argued
WAL-MART: Faces Class Actions Over PCBs in Processing Center
WELLS FARGO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims

WHOLE FOODS: Removes "Clemente" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
ZAZOU SCARVES: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Hazard

* FDA's Device Approval System Needs Reform, Studies Say
* K&L, Littler Mendelson & Morgan Lewis Named Top Defendant Firms
* William Holder Joins Cornerstone Research as Senior Advisor


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Awaits Decision in Fibro Suits Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Lose Pittsburg Corning Plan Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Terminates Obligations Under PI Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Records $190,000 Settlement Cost
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Reports 73 Pending Suits at June 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Reports $24-Mil. Fibro Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Continues to Defend Fibro-related Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $360.3-Mil. Fibro Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 269 PI Cases at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 2,569 New Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM PI Deal Ends if Plan Not Filed by Oct. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hallum" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded to Andrea Electronics
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Edwards" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Is Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Group Had 16 Cases as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Awarded Summary Judgment in FOIA Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Ruling Issued in Metso-ITT Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Starnes" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Walkup" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Affirms Ruling in "May" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in "Haldaman" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Day" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Marvin" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Wins Summary Judgment in "Shimko" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Denied Summary Judgment in "Ruppel" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Wins Dismissal of "New" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded Following Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Landfill Facing Fibro Concerns

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arctic College Students Concerned About Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Complicates Roofing Work at McKean County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Gary Demolition Halts Bank Project
ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Becoming Destination for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Critical of Summary Judgment Arguments

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Clears Way for Use of Fire Hall
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Violations Released Fibro Into Apartment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Compensation Crisis Facing Town Halls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Faults EPA on Failed Fibro Tests
ASBESTOS UPDATE: VA Director Responds to Fibro Investigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: VFW Building Contains Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UO Moves to Correct Fibro Floor Tile Problems
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Longwood University
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welding Program Homeless During Fibro Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Work Needed in Litigating Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Hikes Prices to Demolish Downtown Icon
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Schools Suspend Fibro Removal Effort
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contributed to Newquay Man's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stonington Woman Survives Fibro Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Leads to Abingdon Man's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Lawsuits Booted for Lack of Jurisdiction
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Dracut Old Town Hall Razing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ruling Not Gaining Traction in Other Courts
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carmakers, Insurers Want Garlock Docs Unsealed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Delays Strip Mall Demolition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Judge to Junk Cases With No Medical Reports
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Autauga County Courthouse
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quake Damage, Fibro Trap Mail at Post Office
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 75% of English, Welsh Schools Contaminated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winchester Engineer's Cancer Linked to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipwright Dies Due to Contact With Fibro


                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Court Not Yet Ruled on Bid for Leave to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 29, 2014, the Plaintiffs in a class action
moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against them to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to have
a partial final judgment entered dismissing those claims that the
Court had ordered dismissed. The Court has not yet ruled on this
new motion.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction
marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On
December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court
entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its
entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated
amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012,
purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those
originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently
refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed
on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing
of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the
Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several
causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations
stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim
for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the
Frank case into the Consolidated Action.

On April 28, 2014 Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various
rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered
dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The
Court has not yet ruled on this new motion. The Company has filed
its answer to the complaint on May 12, 2014.

1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. is a florist and gift shop.


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Zhamukhanov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Acelrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richard A.
King, Timothy E. Morris, and James H. Welch, Case No. 5:14-cv-
04416 (N.D. Cal., October 1, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Acelrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on the development and commercialization of
innovative therapies for the treatment of acute and breakthrough
pain.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Acelrx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACME REFINING: Faces "Barragan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Borrego Barragan, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Acme Refining Company and Laurence
C. Baron, Case No. 1:14-cv-07666 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Acme Refining Company is a recycling company owned by Laurence C.
Baron.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Entered Into Stipulation of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, that on September 12,
2014, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. entered into a stipulation of
settlement that will resolve the class action securities lawsuit,
Silverstrand Investments et al v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al, Civil Action No. 10-CV-10470-NMG (the "Lawsuit"), pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "U.S. District Court"). The complaint for the Lawsuit was
originally filed on March 18, 2010 in the U.S. District Court. The
current and former officers, directors and underwriters named as
defendants in the Lawsuit have also entered into the stipulation
of settlement. By entering into the stipulation of settlement, the
defendants do not in any way admit fault or liability, and
continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing arising out of the
Lawsuit.

The stipulation of settlement, a copy of which is filed as Exhibit
99.1 hereto, remains subject to preliminary and final approval by
the U.S. District Court.

The Company said, "Pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, and
in exchange for a release of all claims by the class members,
among others, and dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice, we have
agreed to cause our insurer to pay eligible class members and
their attorneys a total of $3.75 million. If the U.S. District
Court preliminarily approves the settlement, potential class
members will be notified of the proposed settlement and the
procedures by which they can seek to recover from the settlement
fund, object to the settlement or request to be excluded from the
settlement class. The settlement will then be subject to final
approval by the U.S. District Court."


AMEDISYS INC: 5th Cir. Reinstates PERSM Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and Puerto Rico
Teachers' Retirement System (PERSM or Plaintiffs) are the Lead
Plaintiffs and, on behalf of the Class, filed suit under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
Amedisys, Inc. and seven current or former board members of
Amedisys including the company's chairman and CEO William Borne,
and officers Dale E. Redman, Larry Graham, Gregory Browne, John F.
Giblin, Alice Ann Schwartz, and Jeffrey Jeter  claiming that
Amedisys defrauded investors by concealing a Medicare fraud
scheme. PERSM alleges that despite knowledge or reckless disregard
of Amedisys's unlawful billing practices, Defendants issued
materially false and misleading public statements to cause
Amedisys securities to be traded at materially inflated prices
from August 2, 2005 through September 28, 2010 (the Class Period).
As information concerning fraudulent practices became known, the
value of Amedisys securities dropped precipitously, which caused
PERSM and the Class to suffer significant financial loss.

The district court granted a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed a
motion for reconsideration of the order granting dismissal and a
request for leave to file an amended complaint, which the district
court summarily denied.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, on October 2,
2014, reversed and vacated the district court's grant of the
motion to dismiss and remanded the matter for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.

A copy of the Appeals Court's ruling is available at
http://is.gd/SQDMZjfrom Leagle.com.

The case is PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI,
PUERTO RICO TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
AMEDISYS, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM F. BORNE; DALE E. REDMAN; ALICE
SCHWARTZ; LARRY GRAHAM; GREGORY H. BROWNE; JOHN F. GIBLIN; JEFFREY
D. JETER, Defendants-Appellees DAVID ISMAN, Plaintiff, v.
AMEDISYS, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM F. BORNE; DALE E. REDMAN,
Defendants-Appellees ARIK DVINSKY, etc., Plaintiff, v. AMEDISYS,
INCORPORATED; WILLIAM. F. BORNE; DALE E. REDMAN; JOHN F. GIBLIN;
GREGORY H. BROWNE, Defendants-Appellees MELVIN W. BRINKLEY,
Plaintiff, v. AMEDISYS, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM F. BORNE; DALE E.
REDMAN, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-30580.


ANTENNA STAR: Sued in M.D. Pa. Over Violation of FLSA & PWPCL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Krzywicki, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. Antenna Star Satellites, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01908
(M.D. Pa., October 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Antenna Star Satellites, Inc. is engaged in the business of
installing Dish Network satellite television equipment and systems
at residential and business locations in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Rd
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


ANZ BANKING: Faces Class Suit Over Bad Financial Planning Advice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Aquilina, writing for St Marys-Mt Druitt Star, reports
that ANZ Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland could face a
class action brought by hundreds of disgruntled investors who lost
millions following bad financial planning advice.  If an action
goes ahead, the banks could face a damages claim of up to NZ$200
million following an investigation by plaintiff law firm Shine
Lawyers.

Shine was approached by a number of investors, including Penrith
residents, who had bought financial "products" through the Navra
Financial Services as a consequence of "inappropriate financial
advice", according to Shine's NSW class actions practice leader
Sasha Ivantsoff.

"We have seen many instances of people being given NZ$200,000 and
NZ$300,000 margin loans when they had a single income of around
NZ$60,000 per annum, which is an affordability question,"
Mr. Ivantsoff.

"But the bank doesn't seem to have done any proper credit
assessment or repayment assessment and instead lent against
underlying assets of security without really considering the
repayment prospects.

The Dillon family in Glenmore Park say they have lost more than a
million dollars and are set to lose their family home as a result
of bad investments and bad advice.

Rebecca Dillon and her husband Glen first approached Navra
Financial Services for investment advice on property in 2007.

"My parents had bought investment properties through Navra and so
we decided to go there because it was our first investment
property," she said.

"We were told that we couldn't afford an investment property and
they suggested that we invest our money in shares.

"We trusted their advice."

The Dillon's were advised to re-mortgage their home and use an ANZ
margin loan to invest in the share fund.

When the market collapsed, the Dillons had to sell their shares
and refinance with warrants from the Royal Bank of Scotland.

"We were told the warrants would be safer than a margin loan
because we were told there would be no margin clause and there was
a put insurance that covered against any future margin clause,"
Mrs. Dillon said.

"That changed a couple of months later and we were told that we
were exposed to stock losses instead of the margin clause."


APPLE INC: iPhone Users Get Class Action Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Jones, writing for WMCActionNews5.com, reports that Apple
users will get a check years after they shoved over cash to
replace water damaged iPhones and iPod touches before 2011.

Millions of iPhone owners ruined their brand new devices with
liquid, but when they went to get them replaced, Apple told them
the damages were not covered.

Apple settled a $53 million class action suit.  The suit claims
Apple wrongfully denied warranty coverage to consumers with liquid
damage to the devices.

The lawsuit was settled years ago, and last week people were
finding checks in their mailboxes.  Many worth as much as $250.


ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Loses Bid to Nix Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has denied the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's
request to toss a discrimination case brought against it by
Catholic school teachers who claim they were dismissed because of
their age.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania rejected the archdiocese's claims that the
teachers were unable to file Age Discrimination in Employment Act
claims under the "ministerial exception" to the employment
discrimination statutes.

The plaintiffs -- Patricia Carothers, Patricia Green, Linda Murphy
and Kathleen Tangradi -- claimed they are classified as "lay"
teachers as opposed to "religious personnel," Judge Goldberg wrote
in his order.

"Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that their primary duties were not
ministerial in nature," Judge Goldberg said.  "They claim that at
any given time, they were teaching at least three more secular
classes than religion classes, and occasionally were not teaching
any religion classes at all."

The plaintiffs received termination notices in January 2012
alerting them that their employment with St. Martha Parish would
end at the conclusion of the school year, according to Judge
Goldberg.  The plaintiffs allege that their terminations were
based on predetermined "matrices" that were not shared with them.
Judge Goldberg said the plaintiffs, whose age range was 59 to 63
years old, alleged they were the four oldest teachers at the
school, where the average teacher's age was 43.

Ms. Carothers alleged she was told by the administration she had
"everything," but did not fit into the matrix, and that she did
not do enough outside of the classroom, according to Judge
Goldberg.

Ms. Green alleged the defendants told her she was being terminated
because she did not have a bachelor's degree and because she had
trouble climbing the stairs.  Judge Goldberg said when Ms. Green
informed the defendants that she climbed the stairs without
difficulty and that she had passed the archdiocese's certification
program, the defendants told her that her certification was
outdated.

Ms. Tangradi was similarly told she was being terminated for not
having a bachelor's degree, and when she notified the
administration that she was certified, she was told her
certification was outdated, according to Judge Goldberg.

Ms. Murphy contended that she was let go because she didn't have
any religious credits.  After she informed the administration that
she had "more credits than was required," Judge Goldberg said, the
administration told Ms. Murphy that she was "not certified."

All of the plaintiffs claimed age was the motivating factor in
their dismissals, Judge Goldberg said, and they filed suit in
March.

The plaintiffs further claimed that they were designated lay
personnel by the school, as evidenced by their employee handbooks
and their benefits, allegedly "tailored for 'lay' teachers."  They
also said the archdiocese's staff reduction policies excluded
religious personnel, according to Judge Goldberg.  The plaintiffs
asserted that they taught secular subjects and when they did teach
religious subjects, they had no decision-making power as to what
to include or exclude in their teaching.

The archdiocese and St. Martha Parish claimed they were protected
from the plaintiffs' suit under the ministerial exception, which
"'precludes application of [the ADEA] to claims concerning the
employment relationship between a religious institution and its
ministers,'" Judge Goldberg said.

In order to determine whether any of the plaintiffs qualified as a
"ministerial employee," Judge Goldberg said the court had to
examine whether any of them "'played a substantial role in
conveying the church's message and carrying out its mission.'"

The defendants pointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit decision in Petruska v. Gannon University, in which the
court looked to see if the plaintiff in that case had duties that
constituted "teaching, spreading the faith, church governance,
supervision of a religious order, or supervision of participation
in religious ritual and worship," according to Judge Goldberg.

The archdiocese argued the plaintiffs' duty of "teaching" as it
related to Petruska brought them under the exception.

However, Goldberg said, "In Petruska, the plaintiff was a
university chaplain at a Catholic university. She was appointed by
the president of the university who was a monsignor and admitted
in her complaint that she was engaged in 'ministerial functions.'

The plaintiff was clearly involved in 'church governance,' and was
also a very vocal member of the university. Plaintiffs in the case
before me have sufficiently alleged that their duties had
significantly less entanglement with the religious mission of the
school than those in Petruska."

Laura Mattiacci of Console Law Offices represented the plaintiffs
and said, "Just because you're a church or religious organization,
it doesn't mean that you have free rein to ignore the civil rights
laws that protect employees in this country."

The archdiocese's attorney, Jacquelyn J. Ager --
jager@conradobrien.com -- of Conrad O'Brien, did not return a call
seeking comment.


ARCOUB & ARCOUB: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mijail Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Arcoub & Arcoub, Inc. d/b/a Pizzafiore a Florida
corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-23636 (S.D. Fla., October 1, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Arcoub & Arcoub, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant known as
Pizzafiore.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      MORGAN AND MORGAN
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: Mhanna@forthepeople.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Settles TCPA Class Action for $45 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel and Kira Lerner, writing for Law360, report that AT&T
Mobility LLC asked a Montana federal judge on Sept. 30 to approve
a $45 million settlement that would resolve a proposed class
action alleging the company violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making unsolicited calls to individuals who
purported not to be AT&T subscribers.

In a joint motion filed with lead plaintiff Joel Hageman, the
parties ask U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen to approve the
proposed settlement, arguing that it presents guaranteed benefits
to the 16,000-member settlement class without the risks and costs
associated with a trial, while also absolving AT&T of all
liability.

The joint motion asks for the law firms Bishop and Heenan, Keogh
Law Ltd., and Bingham and Lea PC to be appointed as settlement
class counsel, and AT&T says it will not object to a fee award of
up to $15 million.  Joel Hageman also will receive an individual
incentive award of $20,000, and all fees and awards will be paid
from the $45 million settlement fund.

The proposed settlement would allow members of a settlement class
to receive up to $500 per call, with the actual size of the per-
call payment being determined on a pro rata basis, according to
the motion.  The parties say they reached the agreement after a
mediation session with former U.S. Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
of JAMS Resolution Centers.

"The parties' agreement to settle this litigation reflects well-
informed and engaged arm's-length bargaining with the assistance
of a highly experienced mediator," the joint motion states.
"Plaintiff's counsel have litigated numerous class actions,
including cases involving the legality of calls made to cellular
telephone numbers under the TCPA.  For its part, ATTM is
represented by experienced counsel who have thoroughly
investigated plaintiff's claims and assessed their potential
value."

According to the complaint, Hagemen received multiple recorded
calls from AT&T that began with the message, "This is an important
message from AT&T to discuss your wireless service."  AT&T claims
customers contacted had consented to receiving the calls by
providing their cellular telephone number as a can-be-reached
number for AT&T's customer accounts.

The $45 million agreement is one of the largest proposed
settlements to resolve a TCPA suit in recent memory.

A California federal judge on Sept. 2 approved a $32 million
settlement resolving a class action alleging Bank of America Corp.
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an amount the
parties claim is the largest recovery ever obtained in a finalized
TCPA settlement.

Capital One Financial Corp. and three collections agencies agreed
in August to pay almost $75.5 million to settle a consolidated
class action TCPA suit, but that agreement has yet to receive
final approval.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bishop & Heenan and by Bingham &
Lea PC.

AT&T is represented by Mayer Brown LLP and by Crowley Fleck PLLP.

The case is Joel Hageman v. AT&T Mobility LLC, case number 1:13-
cv-00050, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.


ATLAS ROOFING: "Seaberg" Suit Transferred From Florida to Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Seaberg v. Atlas Roofing
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-22436, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).
The Georgia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-03179-
TWT to the proceeding.

The class action is brought in connection with the alleged
defective Stratford Shingles designed, manufactured, marketed,
advertised and sold by Atlas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com


AURORA LOAN: Court Okays Amended Class Settlement Notice
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas E. Loeser signed on September 30, 2014, a
stipulation amending a notice of class action settlement in the
case captioned MAUDER and ALICE CHAO; DEOGENESO and GLORINA
PALUGOD, and MARITZA PINEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, NO. 10-CV-03118-SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

The parties in the case have stipulated that the Notice of Class
Action Settlement be amended to include the property address and
Aurora loan number for which notice is sent.  By amending the
Notice of Class Action Settlement to include the property address
and Aurora loan number, potential class members will be able to
determine which particular property and/or loan is addressed in
each Notice of Class Action Settlement received, which will
minimize the possibility of confusion for potential class members
with more than one loan or more than one property at issue.

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

David B. Bergman, Attorneys for Defendant AURORA LOAN SERVICES
LLC.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Court Stays California Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2014, that in June and July 2014,
four lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Santa Clara challenging the Company's
acquisition of PLX Technology Inc.

On July 22, 2014, the court consolidated these California actions
under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead
Case No. 1-14-CV-267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and
appointed lead counsel. That same day, the court also stayed the
consolidated action, pending resolution of related actions filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Avago Technologies is a designer, developer and global supplier of
a broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on III-V based
products and complex digital and mixed signal CMOS based devices.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Delaware Class Litigation On-Going
------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2014, that in June and July 2014,
five lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On
July 21, 2014, the court consolidated these Delaware actions under
the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. 9880-VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel, and designated an operative complaint for the
consolidated action.

The operative complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX, Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.)
Manufacturing, Inc. and the acquisition subsidiary aided and
abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege
that PLX's 14D-9 recommendation statement contains false and
misleading statements and/or omits material information necessary
to inform the shareholder vote. The complaint seeks, among other
things, equitable relief to enjoin and/or rescind the consummation
of the acquisition, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation.  The acquisition of PLX closed on August 12,
2014. The Delaware class litigation is on-going.

Avago Technologies is a designer, developer and global supplier of
a broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on III-V based
products and complex digital and mixed signal CMOS based devices.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Class Member Appeals Final Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2014, that fifteen purported
class action complaints have been filed by alleged former
stockholders of LSI Corporation against the Company.  Eight of
those lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and
the other seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the same
putative class as the Delaware actions (the "California Actions").

On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
order consolidating the Delaware actions into a single action (the
"Delaware Action").  The Company said, "These actions generally
alleged that we aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by
the members of LSI's board of directors in connection with the
merger because the merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the
merger consideration is unfair and certain other terms of the
merger agreement were unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits
sought to rescind the merger or obtain unspecified money damages,
costs and attorneys' fees."

"On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a class
wide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that was
presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. On
March 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered into
a stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution of
the Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses with the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 10, 2014, the Delaware court approved the settlement,
including the payment of $2 million to counsel for the
stockholders, entered final judgment and dismissed the case (the
"Order and Final Judgment").  On July 10, 2014, a class member of
the Delaware Action filed a notice of appeal from the Order and
Final Judgment.

"We and our Board believe the appeal and underlying claims are
entirely without merit and, in the event the settlement is not
approved, we intend to vigorously defend these actions."

Avago Technologies is a designer, developer and global supplier of
a broad range of semiconductor devices with a focus on III-V based
products and complex digital and mixed signal CMOS based devices.


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that in March 2013 and May
2013, two purported securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its former executive officers
seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

In July 2013, the two cases were consolidated and the original
plaintiffs agreed to act as co-plaintiffs in the consolidated
case.

In September 2013, the co-plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common
stock between October 23, 2008 and March 20, 2013.

The Company said, "The consolidated amended complaint, which named
us, certain of our current and former executive officers and our
former independent accounting firm as defendants, purported to
state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a result
of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. In October 2013, we filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, resulting in the
dismissal of some of the claims, and the dismissal of Mr.
Hernandez and one of the two plaintiffs from the case. The matter
is scheduled for trial in March 2015."

Avid Technology provides technology products, solutions and
services that enable the creation and monetization of audio and
video content.


AVON PRODUCTS: Judge Tosses FCPA China Bribe Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Khadijah M. Britton, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge on Sept. 29 tossed a putative class action by
Avon Products Inc. shareholders that accused the company and its
senior executives of falsely inflating stock prices by hiding
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the Southern District of
New York said despite adding 100 pages of new evidence to their
complaint in July, investors failed to show Avon made or intended
to make false or misleading statements regarding its use of bribes
to enter the Chinese direct selling market.  He therefore granted
Avon's motion to dismiss, and also granted its shareholders leave
to amend, saying they can file a second amended complaint by
Oct. 24.

The shareholders brought the suit on behalf of themselves and
others who bought Avon stock at an alleged artificially inflated
price between July 31, 2006, and October 26, 2011, when an SEC
investigation was launched against the company.

Although the investors called a number of statements in Avon's
ethics codes and corporate responsibility reports materially false
and misleading in regard to its compliance and oversight programs,
the court called most of the statements puffery or mere
generalizations, and not factual enough to be actionable as
securities fraud, because reasonable investors "do not rely on
generalizations regarding integrity, fiscal discipline and risk
management."

The court said reasonable investors could be expected to rely on
Avon's statements in its corporate responsibility report that it
had taken steps to ensure the integrity of its financial
reporting, but those statements were not actionable because the
shareholders had failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating
Avon made those statements with "an intent to deceive, manipulate
or defraud."

Although they did not need to prove Avon's intent, the plaintiffs
needed to allege facts that either showed Avon had motive and
opportunity to commit fraud, or provided strong circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

In June 2008, Avon's executives received a whistleblower letter
telling them that the company was violating the FCPA, but the
court addressed shareholders' claims that they had the requisite
knowledge before that date.  Judge Gardephe found shareholders had
failed to show that Avon's once-CEO Andrea Jung had such
knowledge, despite meetings with top Chinese officials and her
high position in the company.

"While Avon may have been striving to involve its senior
management more in the day-to-day business operations in China,"
Judge Gardephe said, "plaintiffs have not pled facts demonstrating
the level of involvement senior management actually had . . . and
how this involvement made defendants aware that Avon employees
were paying bribes to senior Chinese officials."

Shareholders also accused former CFO Charles Cramb of knowing
about another fraud report that had circulated within the company,
but the court found its reliance on the idea that Cramb signed off
on a senior executive's severance package in order to silence him
about the report conclusory.  Mr. Cramb's January 2012 firing was
also deemed insufficient circumstantial evidence that he intended
to defraud or mislead.

Regarding then-CEO Jung's receipt of a whistleblower letter in
June 2008, the court agreed with shareholders that put Jung on
notice that the company's Chinese operations might involve FCPA
violations, but refused to find she should have mentioned it in
Avon's Form 10-Q, SOX certification or quarterly earnings call a
month later.

"The mere fact that Jung received the whistleblower letter," the
court said, "does not demonstrate that Avon knew the allegations
in the letter were true or consciously disregarded proof of the
alleged bribery scheme in making Avon's financial disclosures."

The court found Avon's later disclosures sufficient, from when it
disclosed its internal fraud investigation in October 2008 onward.

The proposed class is represented by Bryan A. Wood and Justin Saif
-- jsaif@bermandevalerio.com -- of Berman Devalerio LLP, Motley
Rice LLC, Wolf Popper LLP.

Avon is represented by Peter C Hein -- PCHein@wlrk.com -- and
William Joseph Martin -- WJMartin@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell Lipton
Rosen & Katz.

The case is City of Brockton Retirement System et al. v. Avon
Products Inc. et al., case number 1:11-cv-4665, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


AWAKENED ALTERNATIVES: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Davis, Earnesto Williams, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated known and unknown v. Awakened
Alternatives, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07657 (N.D. Ill., October 1,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Awakened Alternatives, Inc. is a community healthcare management
company located in Flossmoor, Illinois, that provides a variety of
healthcare related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin L. Leinenweber, Esq.
      LEINENWEBER BARONI & DAFFADA LLC
      203 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1620
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (866) 786-3705
      E-mail: justin@ilesq.com


BEVERAGE WORKS: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Pacheco and Nicolas Jones, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The Beverage Works, Inc. and Ricardo
Valentine, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No.
1:14-cv-05763 (E.D.N.Y., October 1, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Beverage Works, Inc. is a beverage company that manufactures
energy drinks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOLT TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Teledyne Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bolt Technology Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, the Company on September
10, 2014, was served with a petition naming the Company, the
members of the Company's Board of Directors, Teledyne Technologies
Incorporated and Lightning Merger Sub, Inc. as defendants in a
complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk. The case is captioned
Andrew Post, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, as Plaintiff, v. Bolt Technology Corporation, Joseph
Espeso, Michael C. Hedger, Stephen F. Ryan, Kevin M. Conlisk,
Peter J. Siciliano, Gerald A. Smith, Michael H. Flynn, George R.
Kabureck, Raymond M. Soto, Teledyne Technologies Inc., and
Lightning Merger Sub, Inc., as Defendants. This is a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit brought by one of the Company's
shareholders, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
alleging that in entering into the proposed transaction with
Teledyne, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of
good faith, loyalty and due care, and/or have aided and abetted
such breaches.

The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement and attorney's
fees.  An unfavorable outcome in this lawsuit could prevent or
delay the consummation of the merger, result in substantial costs
to the Company, or both. It is also possible that other lawsuits
may yet be filed and the Company cannot estimate any possible loss
from this or future litigation at this time.

The Company consists of four operating units: Bolt Technology
Corporation ("Bolt"), A-G Geophysical Products, Inc. ("A-G"), Real
Time Systems Inc. ("RTS") and SeaBotix Inc. ("SBX").  Bolt, A-G
and RTS products are used in marine seismic exploration surveys to
acquire seismic data. Bolt develops, manufactures and sells marine
seismic energy sources (air guns) and replacement parts and is
referred to as the "seismic energy sources" segment. A-G develops,
manufactures and sells underwater cables, connectors, hydrophones,
depth and pressure transducers and seismic source monitoring
systems and is referred to as the "underwater cables and
connectors" segment. RTS develops, manufactures and sells air gun
analog and digital controllers/synchronizers, data loggers and
auxiliary equipment and is referred to as the "seismic energy
source controllers" segment. SBX develops, manufactures and sells
underwater remotely operated robotic vehicles and is referred to
as the "underwater robotic vehicles" segment.


BUDDY ALBIN: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Roberts" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Roberts and Rickey Mosley, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Buddy Albin Construction & Electric,
Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01933 (M.D. Tenn., October 1, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Buddy Albin Construction & Electric, Inc. offers construction and
electrical services for residential and commercial buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
      THE HIGGINS FIRM, PLLC
      525 4th Avenue South
      Nashville, TN 37210
      Telephone: (615) 353-0930
      E-mail: street@higginsfirm.com


CHICAGO-KENT: Appeals Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JD Journal, citing The National Law Journal, reports that consumer
fraud class actions filed against Chicago-Kent College of Law,
DePaul University College of Law and the John Marshall Law School
has been dismissed by the Illinois Appellate Court's First
District.

The class actions were filed by graduates of these law schools who
claimed that they had been duped by the schools and their
exaggerated job-placement statistics.  The decision was made by a
panel of three judges.  These law schools were three of 14 sued
back in 2012 by alumni.

On September 11, 2012, a Circuit Court judge in Cook County,
Illinois dismissed the class action filed against DePaul.  The
judge ruled that the fraud claims were too broad and that the
plaintiffs named in the case did not have specific evidence the
school lied about the job-placement data.

The cases against Chicago-Kent and John Marshall were thrown out
by a different judge from the same court two months later.

Three separate opinions were issued on Sept. 26 by the panel of
judges, but all of them were similar.  The three judges included
Judge Mary Rochford, Judge Shelvin Louise Marie Hall and Judge
Mary Anne Mason.

In the lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed that the schools violated
the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act of
Illinois; negligent misrepresentation and common-law fraud.

"Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any misrepresentations by
DePaul in its employment information for the 2005, 2007 and 2009
classes, i.e., plaintiffs received exactly what they paid for (the
J.D. degrees) and, thus, have failed to show any actual damages,"
Rochford wrote in the DePaul case.


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Faces "Dennison" Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014,
that a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed on August 6,
2014, a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court District of New Jersey relating to a July 25, 2014
press release about the Company's progress in recovering a
significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company paid in the
first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee customers. The
action is captioned Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit,
Inc., Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong
Xiao, and John F. Levy, Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956. The action
alleges that the Company and its current and former officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting
in prior public filings certain material facts about the risks
associated with its loan guarantee business. The Company believes
that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against it.


CHINA GREEN: Nevada Court Gave Final Approval to Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
China Green Agriculture, Inc. said in its Fiscal Year 2014
Financial Results filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 12, 2014, that on August 12, 2014, the
United States District Court for the State of Nevada gave its
final approval to the settlement of the securities class action
pending against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors since October 15, 2010.  As a result, all
securities law claims that had been filed against the Company have
now been resolved and dismissed.

The Company mainly produces and distributes humic acid-based
compound fertilizers, varieties of compound fertilizers and
agricultural products through its subsidiaries in China.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Samuel" Suit Over Faulty Steering System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Samuel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Chrysler Group LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-01609-CJC-DFM
(C.D. Cal., October 3, 2014) is brought on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of owners of certain 2004-2012 Dodge Ram trucks.

According to the complaint, the trucks in question came factory
equipped with a defective steering system, which causes the trucks
to begin shaking uncontrollably when driven at high speeds --
commonly known as the "death wobble" -- and which can lead to the
abrupt failure of the steering system, making it impossible to
maintain control of the vehicles.

Chrysler Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.  Chrysler is one of the
largest automakers in the United States, producing Chrysler, Jeep,
Dodge, Ram, Fiat, and Mopar vehicles and products.  Chrysler
develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells a wide range of
automotive products, including passenger cars, light trucks, and
heavy trucks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          Bank of America Center
          550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
          Knoxville, TN 37902
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com


CLASSIC RESIDENCE: Removes "Victoriano" Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Victoriano v. Classic Residence
Management, LP, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00028031-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02346-LAB-JLB to the proceeding.

The action seeks recovery of unpaid wages and waiting time
penalties under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
          Janelle Carney, Esq.
          Jason Hatcher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
          14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
          Chino Hills, CA 91709
          Telephone: (909) 393-0223
          Facsimile: (909) 393-0471
          E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com
                  jcarney@antonellilaw.com
                  jhatcher@antonellilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer N. Lutz, Esq.
          Jenna Leyton-Jones, Esq.
          PETTIT KOHN INGRASSIA & LUTZ PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 755-8500
          Facsimile: (858) 755-8504
          E-mail: jlutz@pettitkohn.com
                  jleyton@pettitkohn.com


DELAWARE STATE UNIV: Atty. Fees and Costs Awarded in "Foltz" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leonard P. Stark approved an application for
attorneys fees and costs filed by plaintiffs in CAROLINE FOLTZ,
SHELBY BONNEVILLE, BRITTNI COLLINS, ERIN ENGARD, AMANDA HOTZ,
BREANN HUYETT, VICTORIA KEEN, DIANA SAVOSH, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, C.A. NO. 10-149-LPS, (D.
Del.).

Judge Stark, in his September 30, 2014 memorandum order, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/kIU5X2from Leagle.com, held
that these professionals' reasonable attorney's fees are approved:

The Women's Law Project            $45,003.55
Plaster Greenberg PC               $31,735.09
Pinckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC     $555.00
Flaster Greenberg PC                $147.84.2

Delaware State University, Defendant, represented by Kathleen
Furey McDonough -- kmcdonough@potteranderson.com -- Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP & Sarah Elizabeth DiLuzio --
sdiluzio@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP.


DIRECTV LLC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Hollifield, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DirecTV, LLC, and Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-07622 (C.D. Cal., October 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

DirecTV, LLC is a direct broadcast satellite service provider and
broadcaster.

Sterling Infosystems, Inc. provides of Pre-Employment screening
and HR outsourcing services, information and solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (703) 273-7770
      Facsimile: (888)892-3512
      E-mail: matt@clalegal.com

         - and -

     Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
     CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Telephone: (757) 930-3660
     Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
     E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com


DIREXION SHARES: Faces Stoopler, Pfeiffer and Longman Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Direxion Shares ETF Trust II said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that Daniel D. O'Neill, a
principal of Direxion Asset Management, LLC (the "Sponsor"), was
named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed on
September 17, 2009. The plaintiff, Evan Stoopler, filed a putative
class action against several defendants, including Direxion Shares
ETF Trust ("ETF Trust") and Rafferty Asset Management, LLC
("Rafferty") -- both affiliates of the Sponsor -- and the
Sponsor's Managing Director, Daniel D. O'Neill. The action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Stoopler, on Behalf of Himself and All Other
Similarly Situated v. Direxion Shares ETC Trust et al., 09-CV-
8011-RJH. Two other largely identical lawsuits have since been
filed by other plaintiffs, Milton Pfeiffer, on Behalf of Himself
and All Other Similarly Situated v. Direxion Shares ETF Trust, et
al., S.D.N.Y. 09-CV-8375 (RJH), and Thomas C. Longman on Behalf of
Himself and All Other Similarly Situated v. Direxion Shares ETF
Trust, et al., S.D.N.Y. 09-CV-8459 (RJH).

The lawsuits are purportedly brought on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the
Direxion Daily Financial Bear 3X Shares, a series of the ETF
Trust. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77k and 15
U.S.C. Sec. 77o, respectively.

More particularly, the complaints allege that the ETF Trust's
registration statement contained incomplete and/or misleading
information in that it failed to clearly disclose that, while the
fund is designed to generate returns that approximate three times
the inverse of the performance of its target benchmark on a daily
basis, for longer time horizons, the fund's performance differs
substantially and unpredictably from three times the inverse of
the performance of the target benchmark. The complaints
additionally appear to suggest that the fund's registration
statement failed adequately to disclose that the fund may be
unsuitable for most retail investors. The complaints allege that,
as a result of these alleged disclosure deficiencies, investors
suffered considerable damages.


DIREXION SHARES: Settlement Accepted in Schwack and William Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Direxion Shares ETF Trust II said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, that on January 13, 2010, and
February 17, 2010, respectively, plaintiffs Howard Schwack and
William Lee filed putative class actions against the ETF Trust,
Rafferty and Mr. O'Neill in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. Schwack v. Direxion Shares ETF
Trust et al., 10-cv-00271-RJH; Lee v. Direxion Shares ETF Trust et
al., 10-cv-01273-UA. Each of these complaints raises allegations
generally similar to those that were made in the earlier lawsuits
except that they concern the Direxion Daily Energy Bear 3X Shares,
a different series of the ETF Trust than the Direxion Daily
Financial Bear 3X Shares that was the subject of earlier lawsuits.

On behalf of the putative class, the lawsuits sought various forms
of relief against all defendants, including joint and several
liability for compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages,
costs and expenses plaintiffs incur in the action, including
counsel fees and expert fees, recissory relief, and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief as deemed appropriate by the
Court.

On January 31, 2013, a settlement was filed with the Court. The
settlement was between the ETF Trust, Rafferty, Mr. O'Neill and
the other defendants and the plaintiffs including all those that
qualified for the class definition defined in the settlement. The
Court accepted the settlement on May 11, 2013.


DLP ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Stephenson, Curtis Dinkins, Steven Wilson, and Charles
Feagin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. DLP Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Paige Decking, Scott Paige, and
Denise Paige, Case No. 2:14-cv-00485 (E.D. Va., October 1, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages, attorney
fees, and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of ship maintenance and
rehabilitation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea Ruege, Esq.
      Lisa Ann Bertini, Esq.
      BERTINI & HAMMER, PC
      999 Waterside Dr., Suite 1010
      Norfolk, VA 23510
      Telephone: (757) 670-3868
      Facsimile: (757) 670-3865
      E-mail: aruege@bhlegalteam.com
              lbertini@bhlegalteam.com

         - and -

      James Richard Theuer, Esq.
      JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC
      555 E. Main St., Suite 801
      Norfolk, VA 23510
      Telephone: (757) 446-8047
      Facsimile: (757) 446-8048
      E-mail: jim@theuerlaw.com


DS SERVICES: Paid $2MM in Connection With Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
DS Services Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 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: Expects to Pay $2MM to Settle Wage and Hour Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
DS Services Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 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.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces Suit in Virginia Alleging Violations of FCRA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chauna Jones fka Chauna Crawley and Tyrone Henderson, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals v.
Equifax, Inc. t/a Equifax Workforce Solutions a/k/a Talx
Corporation, and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-
cv-00678-MHL (E.D. Va., October 3, 2014) alleges violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
          1800 Diagonal Rd., Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
          E-mail: casey@clalegal.com
                  matt@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Removes "Randall" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Marvin Randall v. Family Dollar Stores of
Florida, Inc., Case No. 14-017626(21), was removed from the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit 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-62285-JIC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally
misclassified the Plaintiff as being exempt from overtime.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Kleppin, Esq.
          GLASSER & KLEPPIN, P.A.
          8751 W. Broward Blvd., Suite 105
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 424-1933
          Facsimile: (954) 474-7405
          E-mail: ckleppin@gkemploymentlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica T. Travers, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
          E-mail: jtravers@littler.com


FONCIA: Faces Class Action in France Over "Illegal" Rent Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Melvin, writing for TheLocal.fr, reports that on the same
day class action lawsuits became legal in France, a consumer
watchdog group filed one of the collective proceedings against the
country's biggest landlord over the "illegal" fees it charges
renters.

French consumer protection group UFC-Que Choisir has filed the
country's first class action lawsuit against property giant Foncia
alleging the firm has collected EUR44 million in illicit charges
from renters in the past five years alone.

The action came on Oct. 1 the very day class action suits became
legal in France.  The lawsuits allow groups of individuals to
collectively sue a defendant or group of defendants, without
separately having to file a case and hire a lawyer.  This kind of
suit is already common in the United States in cases against
tobacco companies and car manufacturers for its ability to prompt
changes in laws and practices.

At stake here is the allegation Foncia, considered the largest
property manager in France, charged renters for sending them
monthly rent bills.  According to UFC-Que Choisir this practice
has been illegal in France since 1989.  The fee is EUR2.30 per
month, which comes out to EUR27.60 per year, when multiplied by
the estimated 318,000 renters the agency handles per annum it adds
up to EUR44 million in "fraudulent profits," UFC-Que Choisir wrote
in a statement.

At the time he proposed legalizing class actions suits, then
Minister of Consumer Affairs Benoit Hamon labelled them a "weapon
of mass deterrence" against fraud, price-fixing and other consumer
violations, in an interview with French daily L'Express.

"For 20 years, employers' organizations have been blocking this
democratic progress, and for 20 years the French consumer has been
under-protected," Mr. Hamon told L'Express when announcing the
proposal in 2013.

During their tenures, former presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas
Sarkozy both unsuccessfully attempted to establish class action
lawsuits.  Mr. Hamon's proposal, which offered a more limited
version of class action litigation than is found in the United
States, only allows 16 consumer groups in France to pursue these
types of cases.


FRANKLIN FINANCIAL: Sued in Virginia Over Sale to TowneBank
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Malon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Franklin Financial Corporation, Richard T. Wheeler,
Jr., Hugh T. Harrison II, Warren A. Mackey, Elizabeth W.
Robertson, George L. Scott, Richard W. Wiltshire, Jr., Percy
Wootton, Franklin Federal Savings Bank, and TowneBank, Case No.
3:14-cv-00671 (E.D. Va., October 1, 2014) arises out of the
Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to TowneBank by means of
an unfair process and for an unfair price.

Franklin Financial Corporation operates as the holding company for
Franklin Federal Savings Bank, which provides retail deposit,
investment brokerage, and commercial real estate finance services
in Richmond and Central Virginia.

TowneBank acts as a holding company for various banking and non-
banking subsidiaries that provides retail and commercial banking
services for individuals, and small and medium-sized businesses in
southeastern Virginia and North Carolina.

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Franklin
Financial Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th St. NW, Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202)333-2121
      E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com

         - and -

      Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
      Julia J. Sun, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866)367-6510


GENERAL MOTORS: "Williams" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Williams v. General Motors LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02069, was transferred from U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District
Court of the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-07979-JMF
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In
Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-
md-02543-JMF.

The claims in the litigation involve an alleged unprecedented
failure to disclose, indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known
dangerous defects in GM vehicles.  Since 2002, the Plaintiffs say,
GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and
worldwide that have a safety defect in which the vehicle's
ignition switch can unintentionally move from the "run" position
to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in a loss of
power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of
the vehicle's airbags to deploy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          106 W. Seventh St.
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (504) 756-4840
          Facsimile: (985) 536-1186
          E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com
                  mattmoreland@cox.net
                  schristina@cox.net


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 57,000+ Cars Over Wiring Problem
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Trott, writing for Reuters, reports that General Motors Co.
said on Oct. 4 it was recalling more than 57,000 vehicles in the
United States for potential problems ranging from a wiring problem
in the steering column to inadvertent shutdown of the engine.

The recall of 57,182 vehicles in three categories came a day after
GM recalled 524,384 cars and sport utility vehicles globally for
different problems.  The No. 1 U.S. automaker now has issued 74
recalls this year, affecting some 30 million vehicles.

The Oct. 4 recalls included 46,873 Pontiac G8s from 2008 and 2009,
and Chevrolet Caprices marketed as police vehicles between 2011
and 2013.  GM said the cars' ignition keys could be accidentally
knocked out of the "run" position by the driver's knee, shutting
off the engine and air bags.  GM, which has a reconfigured key to
solve the problem, said it was aware of one crash but no injuries
or fatalities in the recalled vehicles.

A total of 10,005 Cadillac CTS-Vs from the model years 2004
through 2007 and STS-Vs manufactured from 2005 to 2007 also were
recalled because of potential overheating in their fuel pump
modules, which the automaker will replace.

A loose electrical connection in the steering column led GM to
recall 304 Chevrolet Sonics.  GM will repair the bad connection,
which could restrict full deployment of air bags in a crash.

A GM statement said it was unaware of any crashes, injuries or
fatalities related to the recalled Cadillacs and Sonics.

GM's most serious recall involved 2.6 million cars with defective
ignition switches linked to at least 23 deaths.

On Oct. 3, the company said it was recalling 430,550 Cadillac SRX
and Saab 9-4X SUVs for possible loose joint and worn threads in
the rear toe link assembly that could cause the vehicle to wander
at highway speed and could possibly even separate, with the risk
of causing a crash.

The Detroit company also recalled 93,834 newer South Korean-built
Chevrolet Spark cars because of a risk of the hood opening
unexpectedly during driving.

GM said it was not aware of any crashes, injuries or deaths from
this problem, but in documents filed with the U.S. National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration it cited two cases in the
United Kingdom and one in Denmark where the vehicle hood opened
while the customer was driving.

GM also said it had told U.S. dealers on Oct. 2 to stop selling
the newly introduced 2015 Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon mid-sized
pickup trucks in advance of a recall to fix a potential air bag
defect.


GRANITE FACTORY: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fily Alberto Aguirre Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated v. Granite Factory, Inc. and
Sven E. Overland, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07682 (N.D. Ill.,
October 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

Granite Factory, Inc. is a full service stone fabrication company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Inkjet Class Counsel Awarded $1.9MM Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE HP INKJET PRINTER LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5:05-CV-03580-JF,
(N.D. Cal.), pending before the court were: (1) Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for final approval of class action settlement; (2)
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for attorneys' fees and costs; and (3)
a motion by objectors Theodore H. Frank and Kimberly Schratwieser
to decertify the class or, in the alternative, disqualify class
counsel.

In this consolidated putative class action against Hewlett-Packard
Company (HP), the plaintiffs asserted that HP failed to disclose
and/or had misrepresented facts about its ink cartridges and
printers.

District Judge Jeremy Fogel, in an order dated September 30, 2014,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/hMAAa5from
Leagle.com, granted the renewed motion for final approval of class
action settlement.  Judge Fogel also granted in part the renewed
motion for award of attorneys' fees and costs, awarding the Class
counsel $1.35 million in attorneys' fees in compensation for their
work on the non-coupon portion of the settlement, and $596,990.70
in costs and expenses. Additionally, each named class
representative was awarded a stipend in the amount of $1,000. The
motion to decertify the class or disqualify class counsel was
denied.

The proposed settlement, among other things, provided for the
issuance of coupons (referred to in the settlement agreement as
"e-credits") and injunctive relief.  HP also agreed to discontinue
the use of certain pop-up messages showing an image of an ink
gauge, ruler, or container of ink, and to disclose additional
information through the cartridge packaging, user manuals,
interfaces, and HP website.

Law Finance Group, Interested Party, represented by Geoffrey
Cochrane Moore -- gmoore@lawfinance.com -- Law Fiance Group.


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Responds to Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a class action filed a response to
Hyperdynamics Corporation's motion to dismiss, the Company said in
its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer
alleging that we made false and misleading statements that
artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of
our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well
and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic
of Guinea.  The lawsuit seeks damages based on Sections 10(b) and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific
amount of damages is not specified. Although several lead
plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and then withdrew from the
matter, a lead plaintiff has now been appointed and a scheduling
order governing briefing on a motion to dismiss has been entered
by the Court."

"On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint, and
defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014.  On
August 20, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a response to our motion
to dismiss."

Hyperdynamics is an independent oil and gas exploration company
with large prospects in offshore Republic of Guinea ("Guinea") in
Northwest Africa pursuant to rights granted to us by Guinea (the
"Concession") under a Hydrocarbon Production Sharing Contract, as
amended ("PSC").


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Shareholder Wants Lead Plaintiff Named
----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff,
which remains pending, Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form
10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 12, 2014, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 13, 2014, several lawsuits
styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of
the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements
that artificially inflated our stock prices.  The lawsuits allege,
among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes
and that we lacked adequate internal controls.  The lawsuits seek
damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not
specified. On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Also, on May
12, 2014, lead plaintiff in the April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion
to consolidate the March 2014 cases with the earlier case. The
parties await a ruling on the motion to consolidate."

Hyperdynamics is an independent oil and gas exploration company
with large prospects in offshore Republic of Guinea ("Guinea") in
Northwest Africa pursuant to rights granted to us by Guinea (the
"Concession") under a Hydrocarbon Production Sharing Contract, as
amended ("PSC").


INNOVIS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Workers Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Ivankovich, Janell Kjos, Vonda Eidenschink, Karin Halverson
v. Innovis Health, LLC dba Essentia Health West, Case No. 0:14-cv-
04137 (D. Minn., October 3, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs have
consistently worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but Essentia
has failed to pay them time-and-one-half overtime pay.

Innovis Health, LLC, doing business as Essentia Health West, is a
Minnesota nonprofit company headquartered in Duluth, Saint Louis
County, Minnesota.  Essentia provides health care services in
Detroit Lakes, including a wide range of services that include
women's health, surgery, physical therapy, and occupational
therapy.  One element of Essentia's services is its Urgent Care
department, which treats patients, who require immediate medical
attention, providing them with prompt and personal treatment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
          Damien A. Riehl, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
          2800 LaSalle Plaza
          800 LaSalle Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: spslaughter@rkmc.com
                  dariehl@rkmc.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces "Rausch" Liability Suit in N.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfred Rausch, Rebecca Hart, Nayda Nazario and Pauline Schaab,
personal representatives of the estate of Joseph Schaab, each
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00505-MW-CAS (N.D.
Fla., October 3, 2014) asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          Facsimile: (850) 216-2537
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Hearing to Dismiss Class Action Reset to Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. said in its Form F-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, that on
August 29, 2013, a petition for certification of a claim as a
class action against the Company, Israel Corporation, Potashcorp
Cooperative Agricultural Society Ltd., the members of the
Company's Board of Directors and its CEO, was filed in the
District Court in Tel Aviv, on the grounds of misleading
information, deception and non-disclosure of material information
in the Company's reports, allegedly in violation of the provisions
of the Israeli Securities Law and the general laws. The aggregate
amount of the damage claimed is $0.79 billion (NIS 2.75 billion)
or $0.95 billion (NIS 3.28 billion).

In February 2014, a response to the petition was submitted and a
hearing was set for July 2014 to determine whether to dismiss the
case at the initial stages. This hearing was subsequently
rescheduled for November 2014.

"In our opinion, based on the position of our legal advisors, even
if the motion to dismiss is denied, the chances of our winning the
case exceed the chances that we will lose. Accordingly, no
provision was included in the financial statements," the Company
said.


ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Says Class Suit Exposure Won't Exceed $20MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Chemicals Ltd. said in its Form F-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, that
during the 1990s, several claims were made against some of the
Company's subsidiaries by plaintiffs from various countries who
worked mostly as banana plantation workers, who allegedly have
been injured by exposure to Di-Bromo-Chloropropane ("DBCP")
produced many years ago by a number of manufacturers, including
large chemical companies and, according to the plaintiffs, some of
the Company's subsidiaries.

"As of December 31, 2013, our subsidiaries are parties to one
legal proceeding by nine plaintiffs who are requesting
certification of their claim as a class action. The claim is for
bodily injury and therefore the amount of claimed damages has not
been stated. We believe the quantities of materials supplied by us
to the relevant countries in the relevant periods was, if at all,
small compared to the quantities of material sold by other
chemical manufacturers," the Company said.

"In the opinion of management and our legal advisors, it is not
possible to estimate the results of the above claims. Nonetheless,
it is estimated that our overall exposure would not exceed $20
million."


JP MORGAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Loeza" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge M. James Lorenz granted in part and denied in part
a motion for summary judgment filed in MARY LOEZA and ANGIE
REVELES, et al., an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 13-CV-95-L(BGS), (S.D. Cal.).

The Complaint alleges alleging ten causes of action: (1) failure
to pay overtime under FLSA 29 U.S.C. Sections 206, 207, (2)
failure to pay overtime compensation, (3) failure to provide meal
periods, (4) failure to provide rest periods, (5) failure to
provide itemized statements, (6) failure to pay wages twice
monthly, (7) failure to reimburse business expenses, (8) failure
to pay wages upon termination of employment, (9) unlawful
competition and unlawful business practices, and (10) violation of
the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).  The Defendant filed a
motion for summary judgment.

Judge Lorenz granted JP Morgan's motion with respect to
Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action and Loeza's waiting time
penalty claim, and these claims are dismissed with prejudice.
The motion is otherwise denied.

A copy of Judge Lorenz's September 30, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/F4rfEdfrom Leagle.com.

JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, an unknown business entity, Defendant,
represented by John Spivey Battenfeld --
jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius & John
David Hayashi -- jhayashi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP.


KINGSUN USA: Sent Unsolicited Fax, Morgan & Curtis Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Curtis Associates, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Kingsun USA Inc., Kingsun
Distribution Corp. and Fuyun Ji, Case No. 1:14-cv-05764 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for sending
out thousands of fax advertisements for goods and services that
were unsolicited and lacked proper opt-out notices to persons
throughout New York.

The Defendants own and operate a home furnishings company in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Telephone: (914) 358-5345
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
      E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


KOREAN AIRLINES: January 16 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
If you directly purchased Air Cargo Shipping Services to, from, or
within the United States from January 1, 2000 to September 11,
2006, your rights could be affected by Proposed Settlements

What are the Settlements about?

Plaintiffs claim that numerous air cargo carrier and certain of
their employees conspired to fix the prices of air cargo shipping
services in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.  The settling
defendants deny liability but have settled to avoid the cost and
risk of further litigation and/or a trial.  Korean Air Lines Co.,
Ltd., Singapore Airlines Limited, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte,
Ltd., Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., and China Airlines, Ltd. have
settled these claims and have agreed to pay approximately $362.5
million to direct purchasers of air cargo shipping services to,
from, or within the United States.  The Korean Air Lines
settlement provides $92.492 million, the Cathay Pacific Airways
settlement provides $65 million, and the China Airlines settlement
provides $90 million.  These are in addition to prior settlements
with other air cargo carriers in the case of approximately $485.8
million.  The case is continuing against non-settling defendants.

Who is a Class Member?

You are a class member if you purchased air cargo shipping
services, directly from one or more defendants, for shipments to,
from, or within the United States during the period from
January 1, 2000 to September 11, 2006.  All you need to know is in
the full Notice, including information on who is or is not a class
member.

Will I get a payment?

If you are a class member and do not opt out of these settlements,
you are eligible to submit a claim and receive a payment.  The
amount of your payment will be determined by the Plan of
Allocation, which is described in the full Notice.  You may
request a claim form online at www.AirCargo4Settlement.com or by
calling toll-free at 1-855-382-6460.  Outside the U.S. and Canada,
call 1-513-795-0998 (toll charges apply).

You may also request a claim form by writing to
AirCargo4Settlement, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box
10083, Dublin, OH 43017-6683, USA. Completed claim forms must be
postmarked no later than January 6, 2015.

What are my rights?

If you do not want to take part in one or more of the settlements,
you have the right to opt out.  To opt out of one or more of the
settlements, you must do so by November 7, 2014.  Class members
have the right to object to the settlements, the Plan of
Allocation, and the request for up to 22 percent of the settlement
funds in attorney's fees, and incentive awards of $90,000 for each
of the six class representatives.  If you object, you must do so
by December 26, 2014.  If you do not opt out of a particular
settlement, you will be bound by the terms of that settlement and
give up your rights to sue regarding the settled claims.
You may speak to your own attorney at your own expense for help.
For more information, visit www.AirCargo4Settlement.com or call
toll-free 1-855-382-6460.  Outside the U.S. and Canada, call
1-513-795-0998 (toll charges apply).

A Final Approval Hearing to consider approval of the settlements,
the Plan of Allocation, the request for attorney fees,
reimbursement of expenses and incentive awards will be held at the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on January 16, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.  You may ask to appear at the
hearing, but you don't have to attend.  For more information,
visit www.AirCargo4Settlement.com or call toll-free 1-855-382-
6460.  Outside the U.S. and Canada call 1-513-795-0998 (toll
charges apply).

This is a Summary, where can I get more information?

You can get complete Settlement information, including a copy of
the full Notice, by registering at www.AirCargo4Settlement.com
calling the number below, or writing to AirCargo4Settlement,
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 10083, Dublin,
OH 43017-6683, USA.


LANNETT COMPANY: Plaintiff Voluntary Dismisses Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. on Sept. 30 disclosed that the class action
lawsuit filed against the company and certain officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, entitled Schaefer v. Lannett Company, Inc., et al.,
has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff.

The complaint alleged that the defendants made a number of false
and misleading statements involving pricing of the company's
Digoxin product.  The dismissal follows the company informing the
plaintiff that it had reviewed the complaint and concluded that
the claims asserted were without merit, frivolous and subject to
sanctions pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Litigation.  The company
is reviewing its options to determine whether there is a basis to
seek reimbursement of the legal fees and costs incurred defending
what it believes was a meritless case.

                 About Lannett Company, Inc.

Founded in 1942, Lannett Company -- http://www.lannett.com--
develops, manufactures, packages, markets and distributes generic
pharmaceutical products for a wide range of medical indications.


LILY MANAGEMENT: Accused of Violating TCPA in South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. Lily Management and
Marketing Company LLC d/b/a USA Vacation Station, and Westgate
Resorts Ltd., Case No. 2:14-cv-03866-DCN (D.S.C., October 3, 2014)
alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW
          125 Summer Street, Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com

               - and -

          Lance Shealy Boozer, Esq.
          BOOZER LAW FIRM
          1331 Park Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 608-5543
          E-mail: lsb@boozerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          MATTHEW P. MCCUE LAW OFFICE
          1 South Avenue, Third Floor
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


LLOYDS: Investors File US-Style Class Action Over 2008 HBOS Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Scotland reports that investors are joining forces to sue
Britain's biggest retail bank Lloyds and five former executives,
alleging they were misled over an ill-fated deal in 2008 they say
wiped GBP6 billion off the total value of shares.

Their claim names Lloyds' former chairman Victor Blank, former
chief executive Eric Daniels, ex-finance boss Timothy Tookey, ex-
retail banking head Helen Weir and former wholesale banking boss
George Truett Tate.  It is the second US-style class action
alleging bank misdeeds during the credit crisis.

Thousands of investors are also suing Royal Bank of Scotland,
claiming damages of around GBP4 billion and alleging they were
misled about the financial position of the former banking
heavyweight during an emergency cash call at the height of the
2008 credit crisis.

London's High Court on September 30 made a Group Litigation Order
-- designed to manage a large group of claimants -- and lawyers
representing the Lloyds shareholders past and present urged others
to register claims by November 10 to avoid losing their right to
compensation.

Under English law, such claims have to be launched six years from
the date at which the alleged wrongdoing took place or was
spotted.  A campaign to draw attention to the cause, which would
include newspaper advertisements, was due to begin on Oct. 1.

The Lloyds Shareholder Action Group, led by law firm Harcus
Sinclair's litigation head Damon Parker, alleges Lloyds' former
bosses breached fiduciary and other duties to win the backing of
investors for a government-arranged purchase of HBOS and misled
shareholders about its true financial position.

Lloyds, which subsequently had to be bailed out with GBP20.5
billion of taxpayer money and remains 25 per cent state owned,
dismissed the allegations and vowed to defend itself.

"The group's position remains that we do not consider there to be
any legal basis to these claims and we will robustly contest this
legal action," it said in a statement.

When recommending the HBOS purchase to shareholders, Lloyds bosses
valued Britain's biggest mortgage lender at around GBP5.9 billion.
However, the business was "effectively worthless", the Lloyds
Shareholder Action Group alleges.

"Many Lloyds TSB shareholders understandably feel they were made
to pay to save HBOS for the good of the country as a whole.  To
them, HBOS was an impulse buy on the part of Lloyds' directors
that wiped out the benefit of years of prudent management,"
Mr. Parker said.

Investors allege they were not told HBOS was receiving emergency
support from the Bank of England and US Federal Reserve, peaking
at around GBP25.4 billion and $18 billion respectively.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Says Appeal in "Alkhoury" Case Has No Merit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury filed on July 2, 2013, a putative
shareholder class action entitled Alkhoury v. lululemon athletica
inc., et al., No. 13-CV-4596 (S.D.N.Y.) against lululemon, a
certain director and a certain officer of the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On October 1, 2013, the Court
appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as Lead
Plaintiff and on November 1, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a proposed class
of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through
June 11, 2013 (the "Complaint").

In its Complaint, Lead Plaintiff asserted causes of action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Defendants based on certain public disclosures made by the
Company relating to lululemon's product quality and the March 2013
sheer Luon issue.

On January 15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of lululemon stock between September
7, 2012 through January 10, 2014. In its Amended Complaint, Lead
Plaintiff added new claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain of lululemon's
public disclosures related to the Company's ongoing quality
control improvements and the impact of those improvements on the
Company's financial results.

On April 18, 2014, the Court dismissed all of Lead Plaintiff's
claims for failure to state a claim. On May 16, 2014, Lead
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company believes there is no merit to the appeal, lululemon
athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 3, 2014.

lululemon athletica inc., is engaged in the design, manufacture
and distribution of healthy lifestyle inspired athletic apparel,
which is sold through a chain of corporate-owned and operated
retail stores, direct to consumer through e-commerce, showrooms, a
network of wholesale accounts, outlets and warehouse sales.


MEDTRONIC INC: Removes "Fultz" Suit to Tennessee District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Fultz, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., et al.,
Case No. CT-004201-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Shelby County, Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at
Memphis, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:14-cv-02776-JTF-cgc to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by Plaintiff Anne L.
Fultz's physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic
Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s Infuse(R) Bone Graft device.  Infuse is
a Class III medical device whose design, manufacturing method, and
labeling were specifically approved by the Food and Drug
Administration pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval
process.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory J. Bubalo, Esq.
          Leslie M. Cronen, Esq.
          BUBALO GOODE SALES & BLISS PLC
          9300 Shelbyville Road, Suite 215
          Louisville, KY 40222
          Telephone: (502) 753-1600
          Facsimile: (502) 753-1601
          E-mail: gbubalo@bubalolaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine T. Heacox, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Tower 56
          126 E. 56th Street, Floor 6
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421-2800
          Facsimile: (212) 421-2878

The Defendants are represented by:

          Leo M. Bearman, Esq.
          Robert F. Tom, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 526-2000
          Facsimile: (901) 577-0818
          E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com
                  rtom@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          71 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 701-8520
          Facsimile: (312) 706-8675
          E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth and Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Appeals Court Affirmed "Camasta" Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of the class action filed by Patrick Edward Camasta, The
Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, filed on August 29, 2012, a
putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the
Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County,
Illinois (Case No. 12CH4405) alleging, among other things, that
Jos. A. Bank's pattern and practice of advertising its normal
retail prices as temporary price reductions violate the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The Complaint
seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class
action, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and
injunctive relief.  After removal to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
(Case No. 12 CV 7782), upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S.
District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and
Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the same
U.S. District Court making substantially the same allegations as
in the original Complaint, which the Court dismissed, with
prejudice.  Camasta appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and, on August 1, 2014, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Court Dismisses Class Claims in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of
contract claims in the class action filed by Matthew B. Johnson,
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the "Johnson
Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos.
A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756).  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing
practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words "free"
and "regular price."  The Complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including
attorneys' fees).  Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S.
District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and the
Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in
the same U.S. District Court making substantially the same
allegations as in the original Complaint.  On February 21, 2014,
Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and, on August 19, 2014,
the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of
contract claims.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims," the
Company said.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Faces "Salerno" Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that David Lucas and Eric
Salerno, on behalf of themselves and all California residents
similarly situated, filed on July 9, 2014, a putative class action
Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for
Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB JLB).  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank violated the
California Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price advertising, price
discounts and free apparel promotions.  The Complaint seeks, among
other relief, certification of the case as a class action,
permanent injunction, actual and compensatory damages, restitution
including disgorgement of profits and unjust enrichment, costs and
attorney fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the case," the Company said.


METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES: Sued in Ohio Over Breach of Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Hamilton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Metropolitan Properties of America, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-02175 (N.D. Ohio, October 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Metropolitan Properties of America, Inc. owns and operates a
business which provides property management services for apartment
buildings throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Bristol, Esq.
      Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
      COHEN, ROSENTHAL & KRAMER
      400 Hoyt Block Bldg.
      700 St. Clair Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 781-7956
      Facsimile: (216) 781-8061
      E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com
              jfuchs@crklaw.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Seeks Dismissal of Force-Placed Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that Morgan Stanley,
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, other lenders and Assurant
Inc. urged a California federal judge on Sept. 29 to toss a
putative class action alleging they ripped off thousands of
homeowners with overpriced force-placed insurance, saying the
plaintiff never paid for the insurance and thus wasn't harmed.

Named plaintiff Shane Valdez's suit alleges insurer Assurant paid
kickbacks to several banks to secure their business for force-
placed insurance, insurance which a bank "forces" on a borrower if
there's inadequate or no insurance coverage on a mortgaged
property.

At a hearing in Los Angeles, Fredrick S. Levin --
flevin@buckleysandler.com -- of BuckleySandler LLP, representing
Deutsche Bank and Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, urged U.S. District
Judge Christina A. Snyder to dismiss Mr. Valdez's suit because Mr.
Valdez didn't suffer an injury and thus lacks standing.  Mr. Levin
said that Mr. Valdez's complaint alleges he was injured by the
cost of the force-placed, or lender-placed, insurance on his
property, but that due to a loan modification, Mr. Valdez never
paid for the insurance.

"Plaintiff has admitted their loan was modified, its balance
reduced . . . those LPI charges were forgiven," Mr. Levin said.
"This plaintiff is before this court complaining of LPI premiums
he has not paid and will never pay."

Mr. Valdez filed suit on May 9, alleging loan servicers Deutsche
Bank, Ocwen and former Morgan Stanley unit Saxon Mortgage Services
Inc., as well as insurer Assurant and subsidiary American Security
Insurance Company, were engaged in an illegal kickback scheme in
which Assurant paid the servicers to secure exclusive purchasing
agreements.

Mr. Valdez contended Ocwen force-placed hazard insurance on his
property in January 2012 at an annual premium of $3,402, with a
coverage of $506,250, and that although this premium was
"substantially" higher than a traditional insurance policy, the
policy provided less coverage than was typical as well.

Mr. Valdez's suit alleged all defendants violated the anti-
racketeering Hobbs Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, and
that Deutsche Bank also violated the Truth In Lending Act.

On Aug. 4, the defendants each filed motions to dismiss the suit,
with Deutsche Bank arguing that it only became Mr. Valdez's lender
in 2008, well after the underlying loan transaction had been
consummated, and thus cannot be held liable for insurance placed
at that time.  Morgan Stanley argued Mr. Valdez's complaint only
alleges a generalized attack on the force-placed insurance
industry, rather than specific allegations against Saxon.

On Sept. 29, Judge Snyder told the defendants that as persuasive
as their arguments may yet prove to be, they appear to be
premature, and took the matter under submission.

"You may well be correct, but it's better to decide it on summary
judgment," she said.

Mr. Valdez is represented by Rose F. Luzon and Valerie Chang of
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP and Stephen J. Fearon Jr. --
stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- of Squitieri & Fearon LLP.

Deutsche Bank and Ocwen are represented by Frederick S. Levin and
Jennifer A. Slagle Peck -- jslaglepeck@buckleysandler.com -- of
BuckleySandler LLP.  Assurant and American Security are
represented by Mark A. Neubauer -- mneubauer@cfjblaw.com --
Frank G. Burt -- fburt@cfjblaw.com -- W. Glenn Merten --
gmerten@cfjblaw.com -- and Dawn B. Williams --
dwilliams@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.  Morgan
Stanley is represented by Mary Gail Gearns --
marygail.gearns@bingham.com -- Matthew Minerva --
matthew.minerva@bingham.com -- and Neema Ghannadi --
neema.ghannadi@bingham.com -- of Bingham McCutchen LLP.

The case is Shane Valdez v. Saxon Mortgage Services et al., case
number 2:14-cv-03595, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Global Cash
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Baird, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Stephen J.
Greathouse, Stephen P. Ives, Neil E. Jenkins, Michael J. Maples,
Sr., Justin A. Orlando, Patrick J. Ramsey, Robert D. Repass,
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., and Movie Merger Sub, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00922 (W.D. Tex., October 3, 2014) is brought
against the Defendants for allegedly breaching (or aiding and
abetting thereof) their fiduciary duties in connection with GCA's
proposed acquisition of all the outstanding stock of Multimedia
Games.

Multimedia Games is a Texas corporation headquartered in Austin,
Texas.  The Company designs, manufactures, and distributes
advanced gaming technology for the Native American and commercial
casino markets with product offerings in video slots, reel-
spinning slot machines, video lottery terminals, electronic
scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery systems, back-
office systems, and bingo systems.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Global Cash is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Global Cash provides cash,
credit, and payment technology to casinos.  Merger Sub is a Texas
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Global Cash, and was
created for purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720
          E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


NEW ARCHVIEW: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Remigio Garcia-Rodriguez, Felipe Hernandez-Garza, individually and
on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. New Archview
Restaurant, Inc. and Nick Xenos, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-
07669 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant doing business within
the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCEAN POWER: Securities Class Actions in Preliminary Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, the Company is a
defendant in four putative securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  See
Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et.
al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815-MAS-DEA; Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015-FLW-DEA; Turner
v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592.

The Company's former Chief Executive Officer is named as a
defendant in each of the lawsuits and the Company's Chief
Financial Officer is named as a defendant in two of the lawsuits.

The complaints allege claims for violations of Sec. 10(b) and Sec.
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public
statements relating to a now terminated agreement between
Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd. and the Australian Renewable
Energy Agency for the development of a wave power station (the
"VWP Project").  All four complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  On August 12, 2014, five motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff were filed.  The motions also seek
to consolidate the actions.  The Court has not ruled on the
motions.  The cases are still in their preliminary stages and
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.

Ocean Power Technologies develops and is seeking to commercialize
proprietary systems that generate electricity by harnessing the
renewable energy of ocean waves.


PELLA CORP: "Saltzman" Suit Moved From Illinois to South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Saltzman, et al. v. Pella
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-04481, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston).  The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:14-cv-03885-DCN to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related dispute.

Plaintiff Dr. Leonard E. Saltzman is represented by:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: paul@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Esq.
          ANDERSEN BANDUCCI PLLC
          101 S. Capitol Blvd., Suite 1600
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 342-4411
          Facsimile: (208) 342-4455
          E-mail: bas@andersenbanducci.com

               - and -

          Eric C. Brunick, Esq.
          BRUNICK LLC
          22 W. Washington Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 262-5908
          E-mail: ebrunick@brunickllc.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER, WEISS LAW FIRM
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com
                  sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS AND LEHRMAN
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 527-8663
          E-mail: mark@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@Qulegal.com

               - and -

          Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
          ARONOVITZ TRIAL LAWYERS
          150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 372-2772
          E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

               - and -

          William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
          SWEETNAM LLC
          100 N La Salle St., Suite 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1888
          Facsimile: (312) 754-8090
          E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com

Plaintiffs Thomas Riva, Nancy Ehorn, William Ehorn and Kent Eubank
are represented by:

          Hillard M. Sterling, Esq.
          WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
          55 West Wacker, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456-7769
          Facsimile: (312) 345-1778
          E-mail: sterling.h@wssllp.com

               - and -

          David Max Oppenheim, Esq.
          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON AND WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: doppenheim@andersonwanca.com
                  ghara@andersonwanca.com

Plaintiff Lyle Schulte is represented by:

          Hall Adams, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HALL ADAMS
          33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 445-4900
          Facsimile: (312) 445-4901
          E-mail: Hall@adamslegal.net

               - and -

          John Jacob Pentz, Esq.
          CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS GROUP
          736 Boston Post Road/3
          Sudbury, MA 01776

Plaintiffs Tim Bastiaanse, Joseph Palmiotto, Brad Zurn and Judith
McClosky are represented by:

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: richard@Qulegal.com

Intervenor Plaintiff Richard Crampton is represented by:

          Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
          Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq.
          CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          120 North LaSalle Street, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 899-9090
          E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
                  smm@cliffordlaw.com

Intervenor Plaintiff Katherine Howes is represented by:

          Edward Anthony Wallace, Esq.
          Justin Nicholas Boley, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Thomas Arthur Doyle, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 227-1992
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  jnb@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  tadoyle@thomasadoyle.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          Sara Payne, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  spayne@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas L. Prochnow, Esq.
          John A. Roberts, Esq.
          EDWARDS WILDMAN PALMER LLP
          225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606-1229
          Telephone: (312) 201-2000
          E-mail: dprochnow@edwardswildman.com
                  jroberts@edwardswildman.com

               - and -

          Amy Rae Fiterman, Esq.
          James A. O'Neal, Esq.
          John P. Mandler, Esq.
          Shane A. Anderson, Esq.
          FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-7768
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: amy.fiterman@FaegreBD.com
                  james.oneal@faegrebd.com
                  john.mandler@faegrebd.com
                  shane.anderson@faegrebd.com

Objector Michael J. Schulz is represented by:

          Christopher Bandas, Esq.
          BANDAS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          500 N. Shoreline, Suite 1020
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 698-5200
          E-mail: cbandas@bandaslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter F. Higgins, Esq.
          LIPKIN & HIGGINS
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 857-1710
          E-mail: phiggins@lipkinhiggins.com

Objector Dave Thomas is represented by:

          Joseph Darrell Palmer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DARRELL PALMER PC
          2244 Faraday Avenue, Suite 121
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (858) 215-4064
          Facsimile: (866) 583-8115
          E-mail: darrell.palmer@palmerlegalteam.com

Intervenor Ron Nolte is represented by:

          Edward Eshoo, Jr., Esq.
          CHILDRESS DUFFY GOLDBLATT, LTD
          515 North State Street, Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60610-8190
          Telephone: (312) 494-0200
          E-mail: eeshoo@childresslawyers.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Duffy, Esq.
          CHILDRESS DUFFY GOLDBLATT, LTD
          500 North Dearborn, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-0200
          Facsimile: (312) 494-0202
          E-mail: mduffy@childresslawyers.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          3700 Glenwood Ave., Suite 410
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 981-0191
          Facsimile: (919) 981-0199
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP
          900 West Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5005
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: matt@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW FIRM
          1225 19th Street NW, Number 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com


PEPCO HOLDINGS: Entered Into MOU in Merger Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pepco Holdings, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 12, 2014, a Form 8-K pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of certain
litigation relating to the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of July 18, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"),
among Pepco Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Pepco
Holdings" or "PHI"), Exelon Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation ("Exelon"), and Purple Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Exelon
("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into Pepco Holdings (the "Merger"), with Pepco Holdings surviving
the Merger as an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Exelon.

As disclosed on page 57 of the definitive proxy statement on
Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") by Pepco Holdings on August 12, 2014 (the "Definitive
Proxy Statement"), 13 lawsuits were filed in connection with the
Merger in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Pepco Holdings,
members of its board of directors, Exelon and Merger Sub.

On June 11, 2014, one of the lawsuits was dismissed voluntarily
and the Court of Chancery separately entered an order
consolidating the remaining 12 actions. The lead plaintiffs
subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 1,
2014, a putative class action alleging, among other things, that
members of the PHI board of directors (the "PHI Board") breached
their fiduciary duties and that Pepco Holdings, Exelon and Merger
Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 12, 2014, one of the former Delaware state court
plaintiffs filed a substantially similar action in federal court
in and for the District of Delaware, captioned Reichbart v. Frisby
et al., No. 1:14-cv-01039-GMS, alleging that the disclosure in the
Definitive Proxy Statement was inaccurate or incomplete in
violation of the federal securities laws.

On September 12, 2014, Pepco Holdings entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs providing for the settlement of
the consolidated Court of Chancery action.

Pepco Holdings believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable securities laws; however, to avoid the
risk of the consolidated Delaware action delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such
action, it has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed Merger, all of which are set forth below. Subject to
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Pepco Holdings' stockholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware
Court of Chancery will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims that were or
could have been brought in any of the actions challenging any
aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any
disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for
appraisal made by stockholders of Pepco Holdings in accordance
with Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to
stockholders of Pepco Holdings prior to final approval of the
settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition
in the Delaware Court of Chancery for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to be paid by Pepco Holdings or its successor, which
the defendants may oppose. Pepco Holdings or its successor shall
pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded
by the Delaware Court of Chancery. There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the Delaware Court of Chancery 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.


PERRY ELLIS: Mediation Scheduled for Fiscal 2015 3rd Quarter
------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Ellis International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis International, Inc.,
Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012), involving claims for
unpaid wages, missed breaks and related claims, which was
originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former employee in the
Company's California administrative offices. The lawsuit has been
pleaded but not certified as a class action. Mediation has been
scheduled for the third quarter of fiscal 2015, and formal
discovery has been deferred until after the mediation. The Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged
and is vigorously defending the matter.


PHARMACEUTICAL INNOVATIONS: FDA Seeks Permanent Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 3 disclosed that it
is seeking a permanent injunction to stop Pharmaceutical
Innovations Inc., and its principal officer, Gilbert Buchalter,
from manufacturing, marketing, selling, and distributing medical
products until they come into compliance with all applicable FDA
requirements.

The Newark, New Jersey company's products include ultrasound,
mammography, and electrocardiogram gels, and scanning pads.  These
products are medical devices used for diagnostic purposes in
health care settings.

The complaint alleges that the defendants did not manufacture
their devices in conformity with the current good manufacturing
practice requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
and that they distributed their products nationwide without
required premarket approval or clearance.

The complaint also details that U.S. marshals, acting at the
request of the FDA, seized certain lots of Other-Sonic Generic
Ultrasound Transmission Gel from the company in April 2012.  The
seizure took place after FDA laboratories found in those lots
significant amounts of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella
oxytoca -- bacteria that pose serious risks of infection, such as
pneumonia, to people exposed to the product.  The FDA is aware of
people who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa after having
undergone a surgical procedure at a Michigan hospital involving
Other Sonic Generic Ultrasound Transmission Gel.  On April 18,
2012, FDA issued a safety alert to health care professionals and
facilities to stop using the contaminated product.

"Despite multiple warnings by the FDA over the past three years,
and promises to correct the numerous ongoing violations, the
defendants continued to violate the law," said Melinda K.
Plaisier, the FDA's associate commissioner for regulatory affairs.
"This presents serious health risks to patients who used and
continue to use the company's products.  By taking this action,
the FDA is demonstrating its commitment to protecting the public
from the dangers of adulterated and misbranded medical products."

The complaint for permanent injunction was filed by the U.S.
Department of Justice on behalf of the FDA on Oct. 2, 2014, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety,
effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs,
vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical
devices.  The agency also is responsible for the safety and
security of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, dietary
supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for
regulating tobacco products.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Class Action Over Forfeiture Machine
------------------------------------------------------------
Darpana Sheth, Esq. of Institute for Justice, in an article for
The Moral Liberal, reports that the city of Philadelphia is facing
a class action over forfeiture machine.

For the past few months, Chris and Markela Sourovelis have been
living a nightmare.  It started on May 8 when police showed up on
their doorstep to kick them and their family out of their home in
suburban Philadelphia.  Without any notice or opportunity to see a
judge, the Sourovelises were told to pack up their belongings and
immediately leave because prosecutors had obtained a secret court
order to "seize and seal" the house using civil forfeiture.
Prosecutors who seized the home threatened to sell it because
Chris' son had been arrested in the home a few weeks earlier for
selling $40 worth of drugs.  Chris, who owns the property, was
never charged with any crime.

Unfortunately, in the City of Brotherly Love, Chris and Markela's
story is not unique.  The city's prosecutors are using civil
forfeiture like a machine that strips people of their
constitutional rights in order to devour their hard-earned cash,
cars and homes.

From 2002 through 2012, the city's police and prosecutors took in
more than $64 million in forfeiture proceeds by seizing more than
1,100 homes, 3,200 vehicles and $44 million in cash from citizens.
That's more than twice the annual forfeiture revenue of Brooklyn,
N.Y., and Los Angeles County combined and represents almost 20
percent of the general budget of the city's District Attorney's
Office.

To make matters worse, these forfeiture proceeds directly benefit
the city's police and prosecutors.  Each year, Philadelphia rakes
in an average of almost $6 million in forfeiture revenue, which
Pennsylvania law requires be turned over to law enforcement,
rather than put in a neutral fund.

Where does all this money go? Over $25 million of the $64 million
in forfeited cash and property the city took in went to pay
salaries, including the salaries of the very prosecutors doing the
forfeiting.  It is this perverse profit incentive that fuels
Philadelphia's forfeiture machine.

This is how the machine works: Property owners like the
Sourovelises who have their cash, cars or homes seized are told to
go to Courtroom 478 in iconic City Hall for a "hearing." But when
they get there, they do not see a judge or a jury; there is not
even a court reporter to transcribe these so-called hearings. It
is just a room staffed with city prosecutors who run the show and
call all the shots.

It is the prosecutors who frequently tell property owners that the
process is simple and hiring a lawyer is not necessary.  It is the
prosecutors who require homeowners like Chris to sign away their
legal rights and agree to onerous conditions in order to be let
back into their homes.  It is the prosecutors who force property
owners to return to Courtroom 478 time and time again, sometimes
up to a dozen times in a single case.  It is the prosecutors who
mark cases for default -- an automatic win for the government --
if the property owner misses a single hearing. And ultimately it
is the prosecutors who stand to profit from this scheme.

To end this unconscionable practice, IJ filed a federal lawsuit --
and the first class action lawsuit in IJ's history -- on behalf of
the Sourovelises and all other property owners in Philadelphia who
are living the nightmare of civil forfeiture.  A victory in the
lawsuit would not only benefit the property owners IJ is
representing, but all Philadelphians who are caught up in an
upside-down legal process that violates their constitutional
rights and treats them like cash machines.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Fleisher's Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. on September 11, 2014, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, disclosing that by
order dated July 12, 2013, two separate classes were certified in
an action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (C.A. No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S.
Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) brought by Martin Fleisher and another
plaintiff (the "Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, against Phoenix Life. By subsequent
order dated August 26, 2013, the court decertified one of the
cases. The complaint in the Fleisher Litigation, filed on November
18, 2011, challenges COI rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix
Life, which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language
permitting such adjustments. The complaint seeks damages for
breach of contract. The class certified in the court's July 12,
2013 order, as limited by the court's August 26, 2013 order, is
limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued in New York and
subject to New York law. By order dated April 29, 2014, the court
denied Martin Fleisher's motion for summary judgment in the
Fleisher Litigation in its entirety, while granting in part and
denying in part Phoenix Life's motion for summary judgment.

The Phoenix Companies, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware.  Its operating subsidiaries provide life insurance and
annuity products through independent agents and financial
advisors.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Court Denied Tiger's Summary Judgment Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. on September 11, 2014, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission a Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2013, disclosing that Phoenix
Life's subsidiary, PHL Variable, has been named as a defendant in
four actions challenging its COI rate adjustments implemented
concurrently with the Phoenix Life adjustments.

These four cases, which are not styled as class actions, have been
brought against PHL Variable by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No.
1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on
March 14, 2012; the "Tiger Capital Litigation") and (2-4) U.S.
Bank National Association, as securities intermediary for Lima
Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct;
S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No. 1:13-
cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March
8, 2013; collectively, the "U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations")); and 4:
C.A. No. 1:13-cv-00368-GMS; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Del., complaint
filed on March 6, 2013; the "Delaware Litigation").

The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations have been assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher
Litigation, and discovery in these four actions which was
coordinated by the court has concluded.

By orders in both U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations dated May 23, 2014,
the court denied U.S. Bank's motions for summary judgment in their
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part PHL
Variable's motions for summary judgment. U.S. Bank moved for
reconsideration of the court's summary judgment decisions in the
U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations, which the court denied by orders dated
June 4, 2014.

By order in the Tiger Capital Litigation dated July 23, 2014, the
court denied Tiger Capital's motion for summary judgment in its
entirety, while granting in part and denying in part PHL
Variable's motion for summary judgment.

The Delaware Litigation is proceeding separately and by order
dated April 22, 2014 was transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut and assigned a new docket number
(C.A. No. 3:14-cv-0555-WWE). The plaintiffs seek damages and
attorneys' fees for breach of contract and other common law and
statutory claims.

The Phoenix Companies, Inc. is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware.  Its operating subsidiaries provide life insurance and
annuity products through independent agents and financial
advisors.


PIXAR ANIMATION: Faces Class Action Over Sherman Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California
woman is suing Pixar after she claims it violated the Sherman Act
by entering into anti-solicitation and compensation-suppressing
agreements with other animation studios.

The genesis of the anti-solicitation and compensation-suppressing
agreements at issue was a bilateral agreement originally entered
into in the 1980s by George Lucas, the founder of Lucasfilm, Pixar
President Ed Catmull and Pixar CEO Steve Jobs, but this bilateral
anti-solicitation agreement metastasized over the years into an
industry-wide wage-fixing cartel that included the Walt Disney
Company, as well as others, according to a complaint filed Sept.
17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd.; the Walt Disney
Company; Digital Domain 3.0 Inc.; Imagemovers LLC; Imagemovers
Digital; Sony Pictures Animation Inc.; Sony Pictures Imageworks
Inc.; Blue Sky Studios, Inc; And Does 1 through 100 were also
named as defendants in the suit

Georgia Cano claims this illegal conspiracy among the defendants
to not actively recruit one another's employees in order to
thereby suppress their compensation was fraudulently concealed for
years.

The "illegal conspiracy" was not known to the plaintiff and class
members until, in late 2010, when the Department of Justice
revealed as part of its then-pending investigation into similar
illegal behavior by some of the largest technology companies in
the world that Pixar had also engaged in per se violations of the
Sherman Act by entering into anti-poaching and wage-fixing
agreements with its competitors, the complaint says.

The anti-poaching and wage-fixing agreements were made for the
express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based
compensation for class members that are typically associated with
the active recruitment of employees and workers in a competitive
industry, according to the suit.

"While protecting and enhancing their massive profits, defendants
through their anti-poaching agreements and wage-fixing agreements
deprived class members of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
compensation for which plaintiff and the class now seek relief,"
the complaint states.

Following Disney's acquisition of Pixar, the ongoing mutual anti-
solicitation conspiracy expanded to include new animation
companies that became partners of Disney's, such as ImageMovers,
according to the suit.  Ms. Cano claims beginning in 2007, Digital
Domain's Head of Human Resources, Lala Gavgavian, and other senior
personnel at Digital Domain specifically instructed employees not
to cold call or otherwise solicit other defendants' employees.
The conspiracy among the defendants was not limited to the anti-
solicitation agreements -- it also included activities that were
designed to establish and fix compensation for workers, according
to the suit.  Ms. Cano claims all of the defendants kept the
agreements secret from their employees.

"Only their top executives and human resources and recruiting
personnel involved in the conspiracy communicated about the
agreements orally or in emails among themselves, and they almost
always insisted that the agreements not be committed to writing,"
the complaint states.

The United States Department of Justice's Antitrust Division
investigated the anti-solicitation agreement between Pixar and
Lucasfilm and found that their agreement was "facially
anticompetitive" and constituted a per se violation of the Sherman
Act, according to the suit.

"As the DOJ explained, the agreement 'eliminated significant forms
of competition to attract digital animators and, overall,
substantially diminished competition to the detriment of the
affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively
important information and access to better job opportunities,'"
the complaint states.

Ms. Cano claims the DOJ concluded that the agreement "disrupted
the normal price-setting mechanisms that apply in the labor
setting."

Defendants Pixar and Lucasfilm signed settlements enjoining them
from making such anti-solicitation agreements again.

"Defendants also sought to restrain competition by agreeing to
notify each other when an employee or worker from one defendant
applied for a position with another defendant, and to limit
counteroffers in such situations," the complaint states.  "Thus,
when an employee at one defendant contacted a second defendant and
the second defendant decided to make an offer, it would (a) notify
the first defendant, and (b) decline to increase its offer if the
current employer outbid it."

Ms. Cano is seeking class certification and compensatory damages.
She is being represented by Steven G. Sklaver --
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- Kalpana Srinivasan --
ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- and Matthew R. Berry --
mberry@susmangodfrey.com -- of Susman Godfrey LLP; Julian Ari
Hammond --jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- of Hammond Law PC; and
Craig Ackermann of Ackermann & Tilajef PC.

The case is assigned to District Judge Paul Singh Grewal.

Earlier in September, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

In it, a former DreamWorks employee claimed the defendants
violated antitrust laws and caused hundreds of thousands of
dollars of damages to the class members.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 5:14-cv-04203


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Tjokronolo" Deodorant Packaging Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Procter & Gamble Co. and Unilever United States Inc. have been hit
with separate putative class actions in New York federal courts
alleging that the companies sell antiperspirants and deodorants in
packaging that misleads consumers into thinking they're buying
more product than they are getting.

Although the class actions were filed by different plaintiffs in
different courts, they make similar allegations.  Plaintiffs are
represented by the same attorney, C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation
Group.

Plaintiff Desta Tjokronolo filed the P&G lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 23,
and plaintiff Timba Bimont filed the Unilever lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 24.
Both plaintiffs are New York state residents.  Unilever and P&G
are headquartered, respectively in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
and Cincinnati.

The plaintiffs in both cases claim the defendants violated federal
and state laws and regulations protecting consumers against
unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and
business practices and false advertising.

Mr. Bimont, for example, asserts that Unilever engages in unlawful
and deceptive behavior when it manufactures and sells "Degree Dry
Protection" and "AXE Gold Protection" products because "the size
of the container in comparison to the actual product makes it
appear to the reasonable consumer that the consumer is buying more
than what is actually being sold."

The suit says the Unilever products are about 5 1/4 inch in height
and 2 3/4 inches wide, but the actual size of the deodorant stick
of the 2.7-ounce product is 3 inches in height and 2 1/2 inches
wide.  Therefore, the size of the container "has nearly 3 inches
of slack-fill in height," the complaint states.

Like the Unilever suit, the P&G suit claims the defendant
purposely sold its products with non-functional slack-fill, which
is described as "the difference between the actual capacity of a
container and the volume of product contained within."  The line
of deodorants at issue are P&G's Gillette and Old Spice products
packaged and sold in 2.6, 3.0, and 3.25 ounce containers.

Both suits claim the plaintiffs and proposed class members paid a
higher price for these products because they were deceived by the
products' packaging.  The suits seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as well injunctive relief to
repackage the products.


QUINTAIROS PRIETO: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Moore and Sherry L. Moore, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood, &
Boyer, P.A., a Florida professional corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-
14385-RLR (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          5070 N. Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 234-5150
          Facsimile: (772) 234-5321
          E-mail: lwd@verobeachlegal.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal in "Brookler" Case Fully Briefed
--------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in the case Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation has been
fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision from the
Court of Appeals, Radioshack said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

The Company said, "In April 2004, plaintiff Morry Brookler filed a
putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that
we violated California's wage and hour laws relating to meal and
rest periods. The meal period claim was originally certified as a
class action in February 2006. We filed a Motion for
Decertification in August 2007 which was denied. After a favorable
decision by the California Court of Appeals in a similar case,
Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court, we filed a
Second Motion for Decertification which was granted in October
2008. The plaintiff appealed this ruling and in August 2010, the
California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decertification order. In September 2010, we filed a Petition for
Review with the California Supreme Court, which granted review and
placed the case on hold pending a decision in the Brinker case. In
April 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
Brinker and in June 2012, remanded our case to the California
Court of Appeals with instructions to vacate its prior order and
reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Brinker. In December 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decertification of the meal period class."

"In June 2013, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint
to assert rest and meal period as well as off-the-clock and
Private Attorneys General Act claims and to add an additional
class representative. In July 2013 the trial court granted the
Motion to Amend and the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint. In August 2013 we removed the case to federal court. In
September 2013 the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the case
back to state court, which was granted in October 2013. In
November 2013 we filed a demurrer in state court to all causes of
action in the Second Amended Complaint, which was granted without
leave to amend in January 2014.

"On February 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandate with the Court of Appeals seeking immediate relief from
the trial court's order. On February 11, 2014, the Court of
Appeals notified the trial court and parties of its intent to
issue a peremptory Writ of Mandate compelling the trial court to
vacate its order granting the demurrer and issue a new order
denying the demurrer. On February 21, 2014, the trial court
reversed its prior decision and denied our demurrer. On February
26, 2014, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had
not followed proper procedure and ordered it to vacate its
February 21, 2014, order to allow us an opportunity to oppose the
Appellate Court's notice.

"In April 2014, after further briefing by the parties, the trial
court again sustained our demurrer without leave to amend. In May
2014, plaintiff appealed the trial court's order sustaining the
demurrer. The appeal has been fully briefed and the parties are
awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals. The outcome of this
case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution of it could have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements
in the period in which the resolution is recorded."


RADIOSHACK CORP: Class Cert. Denied in "Ordonez" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
A court denied a Motion for Class Certification in the case
Ordonez v. RadioShack Corporation, the Company said in its Form
10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 11, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014.

The Company said, "In May 2010, we were named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging that we violated California's wage and hour laws by not
providing required meal periods and rest breaks, failed to pay for
all time worked, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to
pay minimum wage and failed to maintain required records. In
September 2010, we removed the case to the U. S. District Court
for the Central District of California. In July 2012, plaintiff
filed a Motion for Class Certification. In January 2013, the court
denied, without prejudice, the Motion for Class Certification as
to all claims."

"In February 2013, plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the court's denial of class certification only with regard to the
rest period claim. In April 2013, the court ordered that plaintiff
could conduct limited additional discovery and file a renewed
Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff filed the renewed motion
in July 2013.

"A hearing on the motion was held in February 2014, at which time
the court issued a tentative ruling granting plaintiff's motion as
to the rest period claim. Following oral argument, the court
issued orders requiring the parties to submit supplemental
evidence and briefs. In August 2014, the court denied the Motion.

"We anticipate that the Plaintiff will appeal. The outcome of this
case is uncertain and the ultimate resolution of it could have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements
in the period in which the resolution is recorded."


RADIOSHACK CORP: Awaits Further Action by Appeals Court
-------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that the Company was named
in April 2012 as a defendant in a putative nationwide collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and putative statewide
class actions under New York and Ohio state laws in the U. S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, claiming that
the Company's use of the "fluctuating workweek" method to
calculate overtime for certain of its retail store managers
violates federal and state laws because the store managers receive
bonuses in addition to their fixed salaries.

In June 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit.
In March 2013, the court issued an opinion granting the Company's
motion in part, finding that plaintiffs were not entitled to seek
overtime based upon the Company's use of the "fluctuating
workweek" method prior to April 5, 2011, the date of a U.S.
Department of Labor Final Rule ("Final Rule") addressing, among
other things, proposed changes to the federal "fluctuating
workweek" regulation finding that, based upon statements in the
Final Rule, bonus payments were now incompatible with the
"fluctuating workweek" method.

The court also dismissed one of the named plaintiffs.

Following the court's decision, the Company filed a Motion to
Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay the Action, which
the court granted in August 2013.

"Shortly thereafter we filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was
granted. The appeal has been fully briefed and we are awaiting
further action by the Court of Appeals," the Company said.


RADIOSHACK CORP: "Fluctuating Worksheet" Method Violates Pa. Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that plaintiffs in
Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey filed in April 2013 lawsuits
alleging violations of their respective state laws. In June 2013,
the Company filed Motions to Dismiss in the New York and New
Jersey cases. In November 2013, the court in the New York case
granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss.

In December 2013, the plaintiff in the New York case filed a
notice of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The
appeal has been fully briefed and the Company is awaiting further
action by the Court of Appeals.

In April 2014, the plaintiff in the New Jersey case voluntarily
dismissed the case and filed an opt in notice in the Ohio case.

In September 2013, the court in the Pennsylvania case ordered the
parties to file briefs addressing whether the Company's use of the
"fluctuating workweek" method violates Pennsylvania law. The
plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and the Company
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  In July 2014, the
court issued an opinion granting plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment and denying the Company's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings finding that the "fluctuating worksheet" method of
compensation violates Pennsylvania law.


RADIOSHACK CORP: 7th Circuit Vetoes Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
appeals court has declared a settlement between class members and
RadioShack void after deciding the actual benefits were too low in
comparison to the proposed legal fees.

The opinion was filed Sept. 19 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.  Judges Richard Posner, Diane Pamela Wood,
David Hamilton voted in the majority, with Posner authoring the
opinion.

"Unfortunately the magistrate judge in approving the settlement in
RadioShack failed to analyze the issues properly," the opinion
states.  "Let's begin with the value of the award to the class
members.  The judge accepted the settlors' contention that the
defendant's entire expenditures should be aggregated in
determining the size of the settlement; it was this aggregation
that reduced the award of attorneys' fees to class counsel to a
respectable -- seeming 25 percent."

But the roughly $2.2 million in administrative costs should not
have been included in calculating the division of the spoils
between class counsel and class members, according to the opinion.

Those costs are part of the settlement but not part of the value
received from the settlement by the members of the class, and,
according to the opinion, the costs shed no light on the fairness
of the division of the "settlement pie" between class counsel and
class members.

"Of course without administration and therefore administrative
costs, notably the costs of notice to the class, the class would
get nothing," the opinion states.  "But also without those costs
class counsel would get nothing, because the class, not having
learned of the proposed settlement (or in all likelihood of the
existence of a class action), would have derived no benefit from
class counsel's activity."

The settlement in the class action was intended as a resolution to
customers who opposed RadioShack's printing of credit and debit
card expiration dates on receipts.  Class members claimed Radio
Shack violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act as
this practice put them at an increased risk of identity theft in
case the receipt was lost.

"At most (the class) received $830,000," the opinion states.
"That translates into a ratio of attorneys' fees to the sum of
those fees plus the face value of the coupons of 1 to 1.83, which
equates to a contingent fee of 55%. . ."

No attempt was made by the magistrate judge or the parties to the
proposed settlement to estimate the actual value of the nominal
$830,000 worth of coupons, the court ruled.

"The magistrate judge, in approving the inadequate settlement
proposal, may have been concerned with the cost of litigation to
fragile RadioShack if the settlement was disapproved and the case
had to be tried," the opinion states.  "But very few class actions
are tried . . .  and this one would not have been an exception.
RadioShack can't afford costly litigation, and class counsel can't
afford to risk a delay in settling, lest RadioShack declare
bankruptcy."

"A renegotiated settlement will simply shift some fraction of the
exorbitant attorneys' fee awarded class counsel in the existing
settlement that we are disapproving to the class members,"
according to the opinion.

The case is reversed and remanded back to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois for further proceedings

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case numbers: 14-
1470, 14-1471, 14-1658


RESTORATION HARDWARE: $9.2MM in Fees Awarded to Plaintiffs' Atty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs and awards,
and awarded $9.2 million in fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorney
in the class action filed by Mike Hernandez.

On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the
Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties'
agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to
other matters related to this proceeding, all of which remain
subject to Court approval. As a result of these developments, the
Company recorded a $9.2 million charge related to this matter
during the six months ended August 2, 2014. On September 5, 2014,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs
and awards, and awarded $9.2 million in fees and costs to
plaintiffs' attorney.

Restoration Hardware Holdings is a luxury retailer in the home
furnishings marketplace.


RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Gelato Fino Tartufo Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Tree Nut, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Rich Products of Canada Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9287

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 almonds or wheat, do not consume the
recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

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

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

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

Affected products: Tartufo - Chocolate/Cream and Tartufo -
Amaretto/Cappuccino


RITE WAY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Demorris" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Demorris, On behalf of himself and others Similarly situated
v. Rite Way Fence, Inc., Marx Contracting, Inc., Eugene
Zapczynski, Christy Grundner, and Mark Grundner, Case No. 2:14-cv-
13777 (E.D. Mich., October 1, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of installing fencing
and guardrails along roads and freeways.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maia E. Johnson, Esq.
      GOLD STAR LAW
      2701 Troy Center Dr, Suite 400
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 275-5200
      Facsimile: (248) 817-2765
      E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com


SANSOO NORTH: Faces "Jaimes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florencio Jaimes, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Sansoo North Corp, and Chris B. Kim,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-07656 (N.D. Ill., October 1, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as San Soo Kab
San, located at 7901 Golf Road, Morton Grove, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELECT FOOD: Recalls Newman's Parmesan & Roasted Garlic Dressing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 24, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Select Food Products Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9259

Affected products: 350 ml. Newman's Own Parmesan & Roasted Garlic
Dressing with 31 OCT 2014 code


STARLINE TOURS: Removes "Harp" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Harp, et al. v. Starline Tours
of Hollywood, Inc., et al., Case No. BC498279, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:14-cv-07704 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of failing to compensate for
all hours worked and to pay overtime compensation, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mohammed K. Ghods, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Rhyne, Esq.
          Sandra J. Vivonia, Esq.
          GHODS LAW FIRM
          2100 N. Broadway, Suite 210
          Santa Ana, CA 94706
          Telephone: (714) 558-8580
          Facsimile: (714) 558-8579
          E-mail: mghods@ghodslaw.com
                  jrhyne@ghodslaw.com
                  svivonia@ghodslaw.com


STATE FARM: Removes "Silcox" Insurance Suit to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Silcox v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00029253-
CU-IC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-02345-AJB-NLS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims arising from contract
dispute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian C. Fusselman, Esq.
          THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE
          2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 236-9363
          Facsimile: (619) 236-9653
          E-mail: cirko@tbmlawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 338-6500
          Facsimile: (619) 234-3815
          E-mail: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com


SUPER ASIA: Recalls EBM Click Cumin Biscuit Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 29, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Super Asia Foods & Spices Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9292

Affected products: 461 g. EBM Brands Click Cumin Biscuit with all
codes where milk is not declared on the label


SWEET ART: Recalls Chocolate Chip Macaroon Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sweet Art Bakery
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9290

Affected products: 300 g. Sweet Art Bakery Chocolate Chip Macaroon
with best before dates of 14OC21 (14LC11) and 14OC23 (14LC12)


SYNGENTA CORP: Sued Over Loss of China's Corn Export Markets
------------------------------------------------------------
Cronin, Inc., and Jim Ruba, Jr. v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-
04084-MWB (N.D. Iowa, October 3, 2014) arises from the loss of
China's corn export markets.

In 2009, Syngenta released a genetically engineered corn trait,
MIR162, into the U.S. market.  The first generation of MIR162 corn
was known as "Agrisure Viptera" and the second generation is
called "Agrisure Duracade," which, was released, sold, and
distributed for planting in 2014.  Agrisure varieties have been
genetically engineered to protect corn against damage from insects
such as the corn borer and corn rootworm.

While the seed has been approved by the United States, Brazil,
Argentina, and various other countries, Syngenta submitted the
corn trait to the Chinese government for approval in March 2010,
but it has not been approved for sale in that country.

The Plaintiffs allege that they have been damaged by: (1)
Syngenta's release of Viptera corn into the U.S. corn and corn
seed supply, which has destroyed the export of U.S. corn to China
and caused depressed prices for all domestic corn; (2) Syngenta's
materially misleading statements relating to the approval status
of MIR162 in China and the impact the lack of approval would have
on the market; and (3) Syngenta's widespread contamination of the
U.S. corn and corn seed supply with MIR162, which will continue to
foreclose the U.S. export market to China in future years and will
continue to lead to lower corn prices per bushel in the U.S.
market, as a result.

Cronin, Inc. is a Iowa corporation headquartered in Plymouth
County, Iowa.  James Ruba, Jr., is resident of Sioux County, Iowa.
The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of planting, growing,
harvesting, and selling corn.  They contend that they do not buy
MIR 162 seed from Syngenta, and instead, only buy corn seed that
has either not been genetically modified, or corn seed genetically
modified with traits that have been approved by all major corn
importing countries, including China.

Syngenta Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.  Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability headquartered in
Greensboro, North Carolina.  Syngenta Seeds, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation doing business in Arkansas under the name of Novartis
Seeds, Inc., with its principal place of business in Minnetonka,
Minnesota.

Syngenta is, among other things, in the business of developing and
selling, in interstate commerce, corn seed which includes certain
genetically engineered traits.  After development, Syngenta
licenses its genetically-engineered corn seed to seed
manufacturers, including Syngenta's subsidiaries, who then sell it
to farmers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
          LUNDBERG LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
          600 Fourth St., Suite 906
          Sioux City, IA 51101
          Telephone: (712) 234-3030
          E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Charles T. Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON & PRAHL, LLP
          25043 Little Water Lane
          P.O. Box 767
          Custer, SD 57730
          Telephone: (605) 673-5223
          E-mail: tpatterson@patterprahl.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Mindy B. Pava, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K St. N.W. Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com
                  jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
                  mpava@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
                  earonowitz@gelaw.com


TEMPLETON RYE: Class Action Over Misleading Ad Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Grant Rodgers, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that a
lawsuit alleging that whiskey maker Templeton Rye deceived
consumers received approval to proceed from the state attorney
general's office, a signal that the lawsuit's claims are not
frivolous.

Under a 2009 state law that allows consumers to file class-action
lawsuits against companies for fraud, the Iowa attorney general's
office must first evaluate the lawsuit and sign off if its claims
are found to have validity, said Bill Brauch, director of the
office's Consumer Protection Division.

Though largely a formality, it is an acknowledgment that Templeton
Rye could be found liable for violating Iowa law if allegations of
consumer fraud and misleading advertising are found to be true,
Mr. Brauch said.  Taken at face value, the claims against the rye
whiskey producer appear "not even remotely close to frivolous," he
said.  "In looking at the claims, they appeared to me to be ones
that had validity, and in fact, strong validity."

If the class action is successful, a judgment or settlement could
give future Templeton Rye drinkers a discount on the product, said
Ray Johnson, a West Des Moines consumer protection attorney.
Often in similar cases, it can be hard to identify all the members
of a class, making coupons an attractive option, he said.

Proving that consumers paid more for the whiskey believing that it
was made in Iowa will be key to the lawsuit, Mr. Johnson said.

Additionally, Mr. Brauch approved the filing of a second consumer
fraud class-action lawsuit against Templeton Rye from another
Chicago law firm, he said.  Illinois court records indicate that
the second lawsuit has not been filed yet.

Attorneys with Edelson PC in Chicago filed a lawsuit earlier this
month against the Carroll County-based whiskey company, which
since 2006 has sold bottles of its "Prohibition-era" rye whiskey.
In marketing materials, such as T-shirts and event advertisements,
the company has said the whiskey is "made in Iowa," according to
the lawsuit.

In August, however, the company's chairman and a co-founder told
The Des Moines Register that the company in actuality buys stock
rye whiskey from an Indiana distillery, MGP Ingredients, and does
not actually produce the whiskey using a Prohibition-era recipe.

Drinkers paid more for bottles of Templeton Rye than they normally
would have because of advertising that was misleading about the
alcohol's roots in Iowa, according to the lawsuit.  Looking, for
instance, at how Iowa wines are marketed gives weight to the idea
that consumers place a higher value on locally made brands,
Mr. Johnson said.

At stores, local wines are often in their own specially labeled
section and sell for higher prices, Mr. Johnson said.

"Iowa can develop certain industries by promoting 'made in Iowa'
or grown here," he said.  "These claims are material and they need
to be true.

"My personal opinion is this is a no-brainer . . . . If you say
something is Iowa-made, most of it or material parts of the
product need to be made in Iowa."

However, the whiskey company could argue that its production
processes allowed it to claim a made-in-Iowa status, said
Marsha Mansfield, a professor at the University of Wisconsin's law
school who teaches consumer law.  After the whiskey is distilled
and aged in Indiana, it is shipped to a Templeton facility and
blended with other whiskeys, water and other ingredients, the
company has said.

"That's going to be a question for expert witnesses to address,
how the manufacturing process of making this particular product
works," she said.  "What are they using locally in order to make
the final product? Is the fact that it's bottled in the state good
enough?"

Under Iowa law, the plaintiff's attorneys do not have to show that
the Templeton Rye makers intentionally tried to trick consumers to
prevail on charges of consumer fraud, Messrs. Brauch and Johnson
said.  The attorneys must show only that it was "likely" buyers
were misled, Mr. Johnson said.

The company's intention, however, could factor into a judge's
decision on awarding monetary or other damages, both said.

The lawsuit, however, does allege that the company made
intentional decisions to deceive drinkers, such as originally
keeping the fact that the whiskey is distilled in Indiana off the
bottle.

"Defendant had the opportunity to design, distribute and
orchestrate its marketing to disclose the actual origins of its
Templeton Rye but instead chose to design misleading marketing
that concealed the true origin of its whiskey," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit will most likely be watched by many in the growing
craft distilling industry, said Wayne Curtis, a freelance
journalist who writes about spirits for the Atlantic.  However,
Mr. Curtis said he believes the lawsuit is "opportunistic" and
overlooks the fact that Templeton Rye and others based on the MGP
Ingredients recipe are, overall, quality whiskeys.

Media coverage is forcing Templeton Rye and other craft distillers
to be more transparent about the source of their products without
any need for class-action lawsuits, Mr. Curtis said.

"It was not a bait-and-switch kind of thing, other than on the
marketing side," he said.  "It's not like they're promising craft
and giving them some swill made in a Third World country."

What's next?

The next major step in the lawsuit against Templeton Rye will be a
decision by a judge over whether to "certify" the class, which
will determine whether the lawsuit moves forward as a class
action, said Ray Johnson, a West Des Moines consumer protection
attorney.

The lawsuit names the class as "all individuals in the United
States who've purchased a bottle of Templeton Rye."  The company
has sold over a million bottles of its whiskey.

Templeton Rye will most likely argue against certifying the class,
which could increase the amount of damages it pays if the
plaintiffs are successful, Mr. Johnson said.  A common tactic used
by attorneys arguing against class certification is claiming that
there's no way to prove the class action accurately represents a
group of people, he said.

For instance, the whiskey company could argue that there's no way
to prove that everybody who bought a bottle feels tricked by what
the plaintiff's attorneys claim were Templeton Rye's deceptive
marketing practices, Mr. Johnson said.  A judge's decision on
class certification typically comes months after a lawsuit is
filed, he said.

Templeton Rye's website and promotional videos claim the firm was
born after its founders got a scrap of paper with the whiskey's
recipe handed down from Alphonse Kerkhoff, who made the alcohol
during Prohibition.

The company announced in August that it would change its bottle's
labeling to include that the whiskey is distilled in Indiana,
which had previously been left off the bottle.


TIRE DON: Faces "Camilo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jhomar Camilo and Felix Emanuel Hiraldo, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. The Tire Don Inc. (d/b/a El
Don De Las Gomas), Paragon Valet Parking Inc. (d/b/a Paragon Valet
Parking), Andres Salas, and Andy Salas, Case No. 1:14-cv-07942
(S.D.N.Y., October 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own, operate or control a car repair and valet
parking service located at 1809 Carter Avenue and 1805 Carter
Avenue, Bronx, New York 10457.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOTAL WEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Investment Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Mecija, writing for Team 10, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against a local financial adviser
investment firm. Some clients say they have lost their entire life
savings.

Don Clugston invested his entire retirement -- $1.7 million --
with San Diego-based Total Wealth Management.

"(The) reason I went to them is I wanted someone I could trust.
They were very trustworthy," he said.

Mr. Clugston retired a couple years ago after a career as an
engineer.

Total Wealth Management's CEP, Jacob Cooper, would often appear on
local radio or TV shows.  Now, the Securities and Exchange
Commission is investigating the company for fraud, receiving extra
money on the side without telling its investors.

"They invested the money, not how it would best serve the
investors, but how it would best serve them.  They invested with
companies that gave them kickbacks and that was their criteria.
That's illegal," said attorney Maria Severson, who is representing
the victims.

Mr. Clugston said nearly half of his money is now gone. He is not
alone.

Gloria Templin, who retired from a career with a telephone
company, invested about a quarter of a million dollars.
Christopher Bryant invested half a million dollars from his
retirement accounts.

"My guess would be $400,000 to $450,000 is completely at risk at
this point," Mr. Bryant said.

Ms. Severson said there could potentially be dozens more victims
added to the lawsuit in the future.

"When you have everything you work for suddenly disappearing, when
you start thinking about it . . . it drains on you," Mr. Clugston
said.

"It absolutely has an emotional effect at home and what your plans
are for the future," Mr. Bryant added.

Team 10 reached out to the attorneys representing Mr. Cooper and
Total Wealth Management, but have yet to hear back.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in C.D. California Over Defective Dashboards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Moreno, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc., a California
Corporation, and Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-07636
(C.D. Cal., October 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to disclose to the consumers that they had opted to
install dashboards in the vehicles that do not withstand exposure
to sunlight; melt, emit a noxious chemical smell; and take on a
reflective quality. When the dashboards become reflective, drivers
trying to see through the windshield must struggle to see past the
reflection of the dashboard in the windshield. And when the sun or
another bright light catches the dashboard at the right angle,
light shoots unexpectedly into drivers' eyes, temporarily blinding
them and endangering everyone on the road.

Toyota Motor Corporation manufactures, markets, distributes, and
warrants automobiles in the United States, under both the Toyota
and Lexus brand names.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc. is the U.S. sales, marketing, and
distribution arm of its Japanese parent company, Toyota Motor
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Dylan Hughes, Esq.
      Jennifer McIntosh, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      Bank of America Center
      550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Defect in Tacoma Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Burns, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., a California
Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02208-PKH (W.D. Ark., October 3,
2014) asserts product liability claims.

According to Top Class Actions, the lawsuit alleges that the
Company's popular truck model, the Toyota Tacoma, suffers from a
defect making that model particularly vulnerable to rust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip J. Milligan, Esq.
          MILLIGAN MEDLOCK GRAMLICH LLP
          500 So. 16th Street
          P.O. Box 2347
          Fort Smith, AR 72902
          Telephone: (479) 783-2213
          Facsimile: (479) 783-4329
          E-mail: patsylund@sbcglobal.net


TOYS R US: Recalls Children's Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toys R Us Inc., of Wayne, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of
about 19,000 Koala children's sandals with butterfly wings.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The butterfly wings on the children's sandals can rip and detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

Toys R Us has received a report from a consumer who found a piece
of the shoe's butterfly wings in their child's mouth.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves Koala Baby girl's plastic sandals with
butterfly wings attached to the toes with rhinestones and hard or
soft cork-type soles.  Sandal colors include white or combination
pink, gold and blue.  They were sold in baby sizes 0 to 3 and
girl's sizes 2 to 10.  "Koala Baby" and the size are printed on
the soles.  White soft-soled sandals have model number GNL 43633BR
and item number 795267 printed on a tag sewn into the sandal's
ankle strap.  White hard-soled sandals have model number GNL
43706BR and item number 795313.  Combination pink, gold and blue
soft-soled sandals have model number GNL 43634BR and item number
795275.  Combination pink, gold and blue hard-soled sandals have
GNM 41761BR and item number 845795.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Toys
R Us and Babies R Us stores nationwide and online at toysrus and
babiesrus from Feb. 2014 through Sept. 2014 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled sandals away from
young children and return the sandals to any Toys R Us or Babies R
Us for a full refund.


TRANS UNION: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Henderson, Joseph L. Buckley and Jonathan Harris, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Trans Union,
LLC, in its own name and trading as Trans Union Rental Screening
Solutions, Inc., trading as Transunion Background Data Solutions,
and Trans Union Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., in its own name
and trading as, Transunion Background Data Solutions, Case No.
3:14-cv-00679-REP (E.D. Va., October 3, 2014) is brought under the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
          1800 Diagonal Rd., Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
          E-mail: casey@clalegal.com
                  matt@clalegal.com


TRIMFOOT CO: Recalls Children's Soft-Soled Sneakers
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trimfoot Co. LLC., of Farmington, Mo., announced a voluntary
recall of 5,300 children's soft-soled shoes.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A small metal eyelet can detach from the inside of the sneaker,
posing a choking hazard to infants.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves First Impressions high-top, soft-soled
sneakers for infants that are crawling or standing.  The recalled
shoes have blue denim soles and uppers, brown canvas tongues, tan
shoe laces and white polyurethane toes.  Each upper has eight 3/16
inch eyelets for the laces.  The shoes came in sizes 0, 1, 2 and
3. Style number 42090 is on a cloth tag inside of shoe.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Macy's stores nationwide from Feb. 2014 to August,
2014 for about $17.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled shoes away from
children and return the shoes to Macy's or contact Trimfoot for a
full refund.


TWIN PINES: District Court Dismisses "Stinson" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a diversity, putative-class action, Charles Byron Stinson sued
Twin Pines Coal Company, Inc. for breach of contract. Twin Pines
filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Transfer
Count I to Arbitration. As grounds for its motion, Twin Pines
contended that Mr. Stinson cannot recover on behalf of himself or
a putative class because he is neither a party to that contract
nor an intended third-party beneficiary.

Chief District Judge W. Keith Watkins wrote in his memorandum
opinion and order dated September 30, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/PeIOZofrom Leagle.com, that Mr. Stinson
does not have standing to sue Twin Pines for breach of contract
because he lacks a legally protected interest in that contract.
Moreover, because the court does not have the power to entertain
this action, dismissal is required under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), he added.  In light of the Rule 12(b)(1)
dismissal, Twin Pines's Rule 12(b)(6) motion will be denied as
moot.

The case is CHARLES BYRON STINSON, on behalf of himself and a
class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TWIN PINES COAL
CO., INC., and THE AMERICAN COAL COMPANY, Defendants, CASE NO.
1:14-CV-334-WKW [WO], (M.D. Ala.).

Twin Pines Coal Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward
Reed Jackson -- ejackson@jacksonandfikes.com -- Jackson Fikes Hood
& Brakefield, Hunter Spence Morano -- smorano@friedman-lawyers.com
-- Friedman Dazzio Zulanas & Bowling PC, Jeffrey Edwin Friedman --
jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com -- Friedman Dazzio Zulanas &
Bowling PC & Richard Edward Fikes -- rfikes@jacksonandfikes.com --
Jackson Fikes Hood & Brakefield.


ULTA SALON: Defending Against Employment Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11,
2014, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2014, that a
putative employment class action lawsuit was filed on March 2,
2012, against the Company and certain unnamed defendants in state
court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. On August 8, 2013, the
plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class and the
Company opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting for the
court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of the
proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt
hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various
provisions of the California labor laws and failed to provide
plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties
as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies
plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter.

Ulta Salon is a beauty retailer that provides one-stop shopping
for prestige, mass and salon products and salon services in the
United States.


UNILEVER US: Faces "Bimont" Suit Over Deodorant Packaging
---------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Procter & Gamble Co. and Unilever United States Inc. have been hit
with separate putative class actions in New York federal courts
alleging that the companies sell antiperspirants and deodorants in
packaging that misleads consumers into thinking they're buying
more product than they are getting.

Although the class actions were filed by different plaintiffs in
different courts, they make similar allegations.  Plaintiffs are
represented by the same attorney, C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation
Group.

Plaintiff Desta Tjokronolo filed the P&G lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 23,
and plaintiff Timba Bimont filed the Unilever lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 24.
Both plaintiffs are New York state residents.  Unilever and P&G
are headquartered, respectively in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
and Cincinnati.

The plaintiffs in both cases claim the defendants violated federal
and state laws and regulations protecting consumers against
unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and
business practices and false advertising.

Mr. Bimont, for example, asserts that Unilever engages in unlawful
and deceptive behavior when it manufactures and sells "Degree Dry
Protection" and "AXE Gold Protection" products because "the size
of the container in comparison to the actual product makes it
appear to the reasonable consumer that the consumer is buying more
than what is actually being sold."

The suit says the Unilever products are about 5 1/4 inch in height
and 2 3/4 inches wide, but the actual size of the deodorant stick
of the 2.7-ounce product is 3 inches in height and 2 1/2 inches
wide.  Therefore, the size of the container "has nearly 3 inches
of slack-fill in height," the complaint states.

Like the Unilever suit, the P&G suit claims the defendant
purposely sold its products with non-functional slack-fill, which
is described as "the difference between the actual capacity of a
container and the volume of product contained within."  The line
of deodorants at issue are P&G's Gillette and Old Spice products
packaged and sold in 2.6, 3.0, and 3.25 ounce containers.

Both suits claim the plaintiffs and proposed class members paid a
higher price for these products because they were deceived by the
products' packaging.  The suits seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages as well injunctive relief to
repackage the products.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Case Obtains Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
an Illinois federal judge has granted certification to a class
action challenging as unconstitutional the federal government's
use of immigration detainers to hold those suspected of being
slated for deportation.

In a Sept. 30 order, U.S. District Judge John Lee, of the Northern
District of Illinois, found Moreno v. Napolitano met all the
criteria required for certification of a class that potentially
includes thousands of immigrants who have faced holds put on them
by the Chicago office of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Plaintiffs Jose Jimenez Moreno and others challenged ICE's
requests that local law enforcement hold those due for release
from police custody so ICE agents can determine if they qualify
for deportation.

Mr. Moreno, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in March 2011 in
Rockford, Ill., on charges of cocaine possession and threatening a
public official.  Although he was eligible to post bond, ICE
requested that the police hold him so agents could take him into
custody.  Mr. Moreno was denied bail and released only after the
putative class action was filed in August 2011.

The plaintiffs allege the detainers violate the Fourth and Fifth
amendments to the U.S. Constitution because those to be held are
not notified that a hold has been placed on them, no showing of
probable cause before a neutral magistrate is required, and there
is no means by which individuals can challenge their detention,
according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by Heartland Alliance's National
Immigrant Justice Center and Winston & Strawn.  Litigation over
the detainer issue has been underway in other federal districts.

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys argued in their motion to
dismiss that the class definition presented by the plaintiffs was
overly broad and likely would include some without standing, and
that any threat of injury was conjectural or hypothetical.

The plaintiffs in Jimenez Moreno ask for declaratory and
injunctive relief to force DHS to follow better procedures for
avoiding improper detainers; to give people notice and an
opportunity to challenge detainers; and to ensure that detainers
should not be issued without warrants unless they have probable
cause that individuals are noncitizens likely to flee before
warrants can be obtained.


VERIS GOLD: Reached $3.6MM Deal in Former Employees' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veris Gold Corp. said in its Form 20-F/A filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2014, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2013, that the Company in May announced that it
had reached a $3.6 million settlement as a result of a class
action suit initiated by former employees.


VIOLIN MEMORY: Dismissal Motion in IPO Suit Briefed and Argued
--------------------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2014, that beginning on November
26, 2013, four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming as defendants the Company, a number of the
Company's present or former directors and officers, and several
underwriters of the Company's September 27, 2013 IPO. The four
complaints have been consolidated into a single, putative class
action, and lead co-lead plaintiffs have been appointed by the
court. On March 28, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed. The
complaint purports to assert claims under the federal securities
laws on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock issued
in the IPO, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount and other
relief. On April 18, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. The motion has been briefed and argued and
now is before the court. It is not known when the court will rule
on the motion.

Violin Memory was incorporated in 2005 with the goal of bringing
storage performance in line with advancements in server and
network technologies.


WAL-MART: Faces Class Actions Over PCBs in Processing Center
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is facing a pair of proposed class actions
stemming from the recent discovery of PCBs in an Indianapolis
returns processing center, where hundreds of workers may have been
exposed to the toxic, cancer-causing chemicals.

The facility, where an estimated 600 people worked, was evacuated
and closed on Aug. 20 after the polychlorinated biphenyls were
detected in floor sweepings, according to the putative actions and
Wal-Mart statements.  Employees were informed on Aug. 25, and told
their pay and benefits would continue while the facility is
decontaminated or operations are moved to another site.  About 400
full-time workers have undergone medical tests to learn if they
were exposed to PCBs and what health effects might have resulted,
according to Exel.

The first putative class action, Longest v. Wal-Mart Properties,
was filed Sept. 17 in Marion County, Ind., Superior Court. The
second, Smith-Cushingberry v. Wal-Mart Properties, was filed in
the same court two days later.

Both suits allege that workers have not been informed about the
extent of the contamination in the warehouse or for how long the
employees have been exposed to the manmade organic compounds that
can accumulate in the body over time and lead to liver damage,
prostate and pancreatic cancer, immune suppression and
reproductive disorders.  U.S. manufacture of PCBs was banned in
1979.

Both also accuse Wal-Mart of negligence in failing to keep the
premises safe and to protect the workers, who processed items
returned by customers, from hazards the company should have been
aware of.  Longest v. Wal-Mart asks for a court-approved,
supervised and administrated PCB surveillance program, along with
ongoing medical screening for the workers.  Smith-Cushingberry v.
Wal-Mart asks for compensation for injuries resulting from the
contamination.

Wal-Mart said in a statement that it immediately hired an
environmental consulting firm after Exel Inc., the Wal-Mart
contractor that operated the 50-year-old warehouse, informed it of
the discovery of suspected PCBs.  Wal-Mart also said it notified
state and federal environmental officials.

Plaintiffs' counsel in Longest v. Wal-Mart are attorneys with
Price Waicukauski & Riley.  Plaintiffs' attorney in Smith-
Cushingberry v. Wal-Mart is Gabriel Hawkins, of Cohen and Malad.


WELLS FARGO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Franklin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-
02349-MMA-BGS (S.D. Cal., October 3, 2014) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92108-3507
          Telephone: (619) 299-2091
          Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
          E-mail: doug@djcampion.com


WHOLE FOODS: Removes "Clemente" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Clemente, et al. v. Whole Foods
Market Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 140801271, was removed from
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-
cv-05652-MMB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the sale of Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value
Plain Greek Yogurt.  The lawsuit is brought under the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and common law
for breach of express and implied warranty.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PC
          1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 200
          Two Penn Center
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          E-mail: sdenittis@shabeldenittis.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacob Oslick, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 - 8th Ave., 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-6480
          E-mail: joslick@seyfarth.com


ZAZOU SCARVES: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Zazou Scarves, of Berkeley, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 3,800 Zazou women's silk scarves.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The scarves fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel and pose a risk of burn injury to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Zazou women's sheer 100% silk scarves.  They
were sold in 20 different solid colors including black, burgundy,
celery, chili red, coral, espresso, fuchsia, grey, indigo, iris
blue, mist blue, olive, peacock, periwinkle, pink, purple, ruby,
sea foam and white.  The scarves measure 72 inches long by 20
inches wide. Zazou Luxe is printed on a tag sewn into the side
seam of the scarf.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/SyO3yB

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
specialty boutiques nationwide and online at zazou and other
websites from August 2012 through August 2014 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and
contact Zazou Scarves to return them for a full refund.  The firm
is providing a pre-paid postage label to consumers for shipping.


* FDA's Device Approval System Needs Reform, Studies Say
--------------------------------------------------------
Marie McCullough, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports
that two new studies add to a mountain of evidence that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration has done a poor job of making sure
medical devices are safe.  The studies, in the current JAMA
Internal Medicine, are accompanied by commentaries that point out
the agency recognizes the need for reform and is in the midst of
improving the device approval system.

But critics say the FDA has an inherent conflict because of its
dual role of protecting the public and encouraging medical
innovation.

Thomas Jefferson University cardiac surgeon Hooman Noorchashm, who
is pushing the FDA to ban a gynecological surgery device that can
spread undetected cancer, said, "The FDA does not have patient
safety as its primary directive.  It wants to get innovative
products to market quickly."

One of the new studies focuses on the device approval pathway
known as 510(k). Created in 1976, the 510(k) process allows
diagnostic tests, surgical machines, heart valves, and other
potentially risky devices to be "cleared" for marketing by
submitting scientific evidence that they are equivalent to a
"predicate" product already on the market.  In contrast, new drugs
are required to show safety and effectiveness in clinical tests.

The Institute of Medicine, an influential federal advisory panel,
as well as advocacy groups such as Public Citizen, have issued
reports in recent years, calling for the replacement of the 510(k)
system.

For their study, researchers from the National Center for Health
Research chose 50 recently marketed implantable devices --
including hip replacements and bladder slings -- from about 400
per year that the FDA approves under 510(k).  Using an FDA
database, they found that just eight of the 50 devices had filed
scientific data to support their claim of being like an existing
product, and only 31 of 1,105 predicate devices had done so.

"Despite the legal requirement that scientific evidence of
substantial equivalence be publicly available . . . such
information is lacking for most implanted medical devices cleared
between 2008 and 2012, as well as for their predicates," the
authors concluded.

The other study, led by researchers from the Pew Charitable
Trusts, focused on an FDA program that monitors the safety of
high-risk medical devices such as heart stents and defibrillators.
While these go through more stringent approval processes than
lower-risk devices, serious problems may not show up until the
devices are widely used. In recent years, for example, multiple
companies have recalled defective defibrillator wiring that was
placed in hundreds of thousands of patients.

The researchers found that the FDA ordered 223 post-approval
studies of 158 high-risk medical devices from 2005 through 2011.
However, most of the studies were too small to evaluate safety,
and companies were not penalized for study delays.

When the studies revealed problems, the FDA took little or no
action: it ordered only one device removed from the market, and
required labelling changes for 31 products.  Labeling is basically
the instructions for the physician.

"One device label was changed to include the high rates of heart
attacks and deaths at five years," said Joshua Rising, a Pew
researcher and study author.

While label changes may prompt physicians to add stronger warnings
to the consent documents that patients have to sign, the value of
labeling in ensuring safety is controversial.

"Label changes aren't going to do anything to protect anybody,"
said Mr. Noorchasm.  "It's just another layer of informed
consent."

Since December, Mr. Noorchasm has waged an aggressive media and
lobbying campaign to get the FDA to ban gynecological power
morcellators.  The bladed device enables hysterectomies or fibroid
removal to be done through tiny abdominal incisions.  But in as
many as 1 in 350 cases, the procedure spreads and worsens a rare,
aggressive uterine cancer that presurgical tests can't detect.

Anesthesiologist Amy Reed, Mr. Noorchasm's wife and the mother of
their five children, has been fighting advanced leiomyosarcoma
since she underwent morcellation almost year ago.

The FDA in April issued an unusual safety advisory to discourage
physicians from using the device, and in July the agency held a
hearing to decide what more to do.

But it hasn't yet taken further action. (The main morcellator
manufacturer has suspended sales, and the device has been
disavowed by many doctors and a big health insurer.

A spokesman said the FDA is "considering a great deal of
information . . . in determining any future regulatory action."


* K&L, Littler Mendelson & Morgan Lewis Named Top Defendant Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that, with corporate
counsel expecting to boost spending on defending class actions
more than on any other litigation area in 2015, three firms stand
to reap outsize benefits as the most sought-after players in the
field, according to a new survey.

K&L Gates LLP, Littler Mendelson PC and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
were named as the top three class action and mass tort powerhouses
in the BTI Litigation Outlook 2015 report published by BTI
Consulting Group Inc. (Wellesley, Massachusetts), which based its
findings on interviews with 300 in-house counsel.

According to the report, nearly 34 percent of companies are
managing at least one class action in any given year.  In 2015,
in-house counsel anticipate spending nearly $2.1 billion defending
such cases as opportunistic class plaintiffs continue to find new
topics and interpretations of law to exploit, the report said.
This marks a 2.7 percent increase in spending over 2014, according
to the report.

Class action attorneys at these firms possess a slightly different
skill set than their general litigation counterparts, partly due
to the need to corral a unified defense strategy in far-flung
cases that could be merged into multidistrict litigation,
according to BTI President Michael Rynowecer.  The ability to
quickly assess the landscape and provide a menu of options for
corporate counsel is imperative, he told Law360.

As a general counsel, "the earlier in the process you can plot
your strategy and tactics in a class action case, the better off
you're going to be," Mr. Rynowecer said.

Plaintiffs firms, often hemmed in by contingency fee business
models, have become more aggressive in finding new legal
rationales to bring class actions as the economy has improved,
according to Mr. Rynowecer.  Corporate counsel are on especially
high alert in the burgeoning area of data protection and privacy,
with data breaches at retailers like Target Corp. and Home Depot
Inc. grabbing headlines and inviting lawsuits, he said.

"With every Target or Home Depot, the plaintiffs' bar gets more
creative and sees millions and millions of potential clients,"
Mr. Rynowecer said.

The early case assessments trumpeted by Mr. Rynowecer are a major
part of K&L Gates' approach to class actions, according to
Thomas Birsic, a leader in the firm's litigation practice group.
Out of 600 litigation lawyers across 24 offices in the U.S., 125
K&L Gates attorneys work on class actions, with mortgage and other
consumer finance-related cases a major focus, Mr. Birsic said.

"It allows the client and us to focus most effectively on
deploying legal resources, creating early decision points and then
budgeting around them," he told Law360.  "All good lawyers do
early case assessment, but we attempt to do it in writing and try
to make it a dynamic document for the client."

Also, trial courts are increasingly giving consumers the benefit
of the doubt in the early stages of litigation, making it more
difficult to dismiss consumer protection cases at the class
certification stage, even when there are real problems with the
pleadings, according to Mr. Birsic.  This has led K&L Gates to a
"multidimensional approach" that looks ahead to what the key
issues may be on appeal, he said.

"Pointing the trial courts sharply to what they may face on appeal
is becoming more important," Mr. Birsic told Law360.

Morgan Lewis litigation practice head J. Gordon Cooney stressed
the importance of pinpointing a client's business objective in
each class action, noting that these cases can threaten a
company's reputation in addition to the obvious legal risks.

Morgan Lewis dedicates 120 of its 453 litigation attorneys across
the globe to its class action practice, which is divided into
employment and nonemployment groups, according to Mr. Cooney.  The
firm has a stellar track record of securing dispositive decisions,
particularly in the pharmaceutical space, where Morgan Lewis
attorneys have dispensed with numerous suits over purported
injuries from the off-label promotion of drugs, Mr. Cooney told
Law360.

"We're on the cutting edge of marshaling arguments and presenting
evidence to the court concerning why class treatment might not be
the best option," he said.

Other firms that were noted by general counsel as class action
standouts include Alston & Bird LLP, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott LLP, Jones Day, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Dechert LLP,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP and Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.


* William Holder Joins Cornerstone Research as Senior Advisor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Research, a provider of economic and financial
consulting and expert testimony, on Oct. 8 disclosed that William
W. Holder, dean of the Leventhal School of Accounting at the
University of Southern California, has joined the firm as a senior
advisor.  He is also the Alan Casden Dean's Chair and Professor of
Accounting.  Professor Holder has extensive experience as an
expert witness in high-profile trials involving questions of
accounting.

"Bill Holder is one of the foremost experts on accounting issues
that arise in legal and regulatory matters," said Cornerstone
Research President and CEO Michael E. Burton.  "His expertise and
reputation in financial accounting and reporting, auditing,
governmental accounting, and cost accounting are a major addition
to the firm's outstanding network of experts."

Professor Holder has served on several governance and standard-
setting bodies for the accounting profession, including as a
member of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), on
committees of the American Accounting Association, and on the
Board of Directors (chair of the Audit Committee) of the American
Institute of CPAs (AICPA).  At the invitation of the Congressional
Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-
Sponsored Enterprises, he provided testimony on corporate
accounting practices during the Sarbanes-Oxley Act hearings.
The accounting profession has bestowed many honors on Professor
Holder for his service and lifetime achievements, including the
AICPA's Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Service, the
organization's highest honor for a CPA.  He has won numerous
outstanding teaching awards, including Best Professor in the
University of Southern California master's degree program.

Professor Holder is the author or coauthor of six books on
accounting, and his research has been widely published in
journals, including the Accounting Review, the Journal of
Accountancy, Financial Executive, and the CPA Journal.

"I'm pleased to continue as an expert working with Cornerstone
Research in the role of senior advisor," said Professor Holder.
"I've been impressed by Cornerstone Research's high standards,
rigorous methodology, and the level of support they provide."

                    About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
high-quality economic and financial consulting and expert
testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory
proceedings.  The firm works with an extensive network of
prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-
qualified expert for each assignment.  Staff consultants bring
specialized knowledge and experience as well as a commitment to
produce outstanding results.  Currently marking its 25th
anniversary, Cornerstone Research has more than 500 staff, and
offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New
York, San Francisco, and Washington.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Awaits Decision in Fibro Suits Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2014, for the
Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2014, that oral argument in
asbestos class actions before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
took place on January 10, 2013, and the parties await the court's
decision.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, and other insurers (not including The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired by TPC in 2004) in state
court in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed
in West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These suits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in
these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated
injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the
Johns-Manville bankruptcy (the "1986 Orders").  The bankruptcy
court issued a temporary restraining order and referred the
parties to mediation.  In November 2003, the parties reached a
settlement of the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a
lump-sum payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number
of significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.  Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements was that the
bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order,
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution
claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders.

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the "Clarifying
Order"). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.  Although the
District Court substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted
TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008
decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are
final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on
jurisdictional grounds.  The Supreme Court further ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.
However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. TPC's Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc was denied May 25, 2010 and its Petition for
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied
by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
settlements had been met.

On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs'
motions and ruled that TPC was required to fund the settlements.
The court entered judgment against TPC on January 20, 2011 in
accordance with this ruling and ordered TPC to pay the settlement
amounts plus prejudgment interest.  The bankruptcy court's
judgment was reversed by the district court on March 1, 2012, the
district court having found that the conditions to the settlements
had not been met in view of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010
ruling permitting the filing of contribution claims against TPC.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's March 1, 2012
decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  Oral argument
before the Second Circuit took place on January 10, 2013, and the
parties await the court's decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Lose Pittsburg Corning Plan Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti in Pennsylvania affirmed
the bankruptcy court's May 24, 2013 order:

     -- confirming the Modified Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization of debtor Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, and

     -- issuing an asbestos permanent channeling injunction under
11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(g).

Mt. McKinley Insurance Company and Everest Reinsurance Company
object to the Plan and filed a brief seeking reversal of the
confirmation order.

Pittsburgh Corning, the Official Committee of Asbestos Creditors,
the Legal Representative for Future Asbestos Claimants, PPG
Industries, Inc., and Corning Incorporated support the Plan.

The plan parties filed a motion for an order affirming the
bankruptcy court's confirmation order and a joint brief in
response to Mt. McKinley's brief.

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, and Certain London Market
Companies filed a separate brief urging affirmance.

The key feature of the plan is the creation of the "Pittsburgh
Corning Asbestos PI Trust" which will resolve and pay asbestos
personal injury claims asserted against it. Pittsburgh Corning,
PPG, Corning, and certain insurers will contribute assets to fund
the trust. In return, the plan calls for the bankruptcy court to
issue a permanent injunction under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 524(g)
channeling "Asbestos PI Trust Claims" to the trust and enjoining
recovery of such claims against "Asbestos Protected Parties." The
plan channels asbestos claims against Pittsburgh Corning to the
trust. With respect to PPG and Corning, however, the plan channels
only asbestos claims arising out of exposure to Unibestos or other
asbestos products manufactured, sold, or distributed by Pittsburgh
Corning.  Claims against PPG or Corning arising out of exposure to
asbestos through PPG or Corning products not related to Pittsburgh
Corning are not channeled.

Fully funded, the trust will control assets worth more than $3
billion.  These assets include 100% of the stock of the
reorganized Pittsburgh Corning and $290 million in insurance
payments or settlements between Pittsburgh Corning and its
insurers.

PPG will contribute approximately $825 million in a series of cash
payments, 1,388,889 shares of PPG common stock or its cash
equivalent, its 50% stake in Pittsburgh Corning, and its 50% stake
in Pittsburgh Corning Europe.

Corning will contribute between $240 million and $290 million in
cash, its 50 percent stake in Pittsburgh Corning, and its 50
percent stake in Pittsburgh Corning Europe.

Forty-eight insurers will contribute cash payments totaling in
aggregate approximately $1.7 billion.

As part of the trust funding agreement, PPG and Corning will
relinquish certain insurance claims against the participating
insurers.

The trust will have three trustees selected by the ACC and FCR.
The trust will also have an advisory committee of five members.
The initial members of the advisory committee are members of law
firms representing asbestos claimants.  The advisory commit-tee
members have a fiduciary responsibility to the present holders of
channeled asbestos claims.  The FCR has a fiduciary role
representing the interests of future claimants.

The trust will resolve channeled asbestos claims according to the
terms of the trust distribution procedures.

A copy of Judge Conti's Sept. 30 Memorandum Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/BMWCcYfrom Leagle.com.

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Case No. 00-22876) on April 16, 2000,
to address numerous claims alleging personal injury from exposure
to asbestos.  At the time of the bankruptcy filing, there were
about 11,800 claims pending against the Company in state court
lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure
to Pittsburgh Corning's asbestos products and typically requesting
monetary damages in excess of $1 million per claim.

Judge Thomas Agresti handles the bankruptcy case.  Reed Smith LLP
serves as counsel and Deloitte & Touche LLP as accountants to the
Debtor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Terminates Obligations Under PI Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.R. Grace & Co. used a portion of the proceeds from its new notes
to terminate its obligations under the deferred payment agreement
with the WRG PI Trust, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated September
19, 2014.

On September 16, 2014, W. R. Grace & Co., W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn.,
its wholly owned subsidiary, and Alltech Associates, Inc.,
completed the sale of $1.0 billion of Notes in two tranches,
consisting of $700 million aggregate principal amount of 5.125%
Notes due 2021 and $300 million aggregate principal amount of
5.625% Notes due 2024.

The New Notes were issued pursuant to an Indenture, as
supplemented by that certain First Supplemental Indenture, each
dated as of September 16, 2014, by and among the Issuer, the
Guarantors and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee.
The Indenture provides, among other things, that the New Notes
will be general unsecured obligations of the Issuer.  Interest is
payable on the New Notes on each April 1 and October 1, commencing
April 1, 2015.  The Issuer may redeem some or all of the New Notes
at any time at a price equal to the greater of (i) 100% of the
principal amount of the Notes redeemed plus accrued and unpaid
interest to, but excluding, the redemption date and (ii) the sum,
as determined by an independent Investment Banker, of the present
values of the remaining scheduled payments of principal and
interest (exclusive of interest accrued to the date of redemption)
discounted to the redemption date on a semiannual basis (assuming
a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months) at the treasury
rate plus 50 basis points, in each case, accrued and unpaid
interest to, but excluding, the date of redemption. The New Notes
will mature on October 1, 2021 and October 1, 2024, respectively.

If a change of control occurs while the New Notes are rated below
investment grade, or is followed by a below investment grade
rating, subject to certain exceptions, each holder shall have the
right to require that the Issuer repurchase all or a portion of
such holder's New Notes at a purchase price of 101% of the
aggregate principal amount thereof, plus accrued and unpaid
interest, if any, on the New Notes repurchased, but excluding, the
date of repurchase.

The New Notes and guarantees are senior obligations of the Issuer
and the Guarantors, respectively, and will rank equally with all
of the existing and future unsubordinated obligations of the
Issuer and the Guarantors, respectively. The Notes are effectively
subordinated to any secured indebtedness to the extent of the
value of the assets securing such indebtedness and structurally
subordinated to the debt and other liabilities of Grace's non-
guarantor subsidiaries.

The Indenture contains covenants that limit the Issuer's and
certain of its subsidiaries' ability, subject to certain
exceptions and qualifications, to (i) create or incur liens on
assets, (ii) enter into any sale and leaseback transaction and
(iii) in the case of the Issuer, merge or consolidate with another
company.

The Indenture provides for customary events of default which
include (subject in certain cases to customary grace and cure
periods), among others, nonpayment of principal or interest;
breach of other agreements in the Indenture; failure to pay
certain other indebtedness; failure to discharge a final judgment
for payment of $75 million or more (excluding any amounts covered
by insurance of indemnities) rendered against the Issuer or any of
its significant subsidiaries; and certain events of bankruptcy or
insolvency. Generally, if any event of default occurs, the Trustee
or the holders of at least 25% in aggregate principal amount of
the then outstanding series of New Notes may declare all the New
Notes of such series to be due and payable immediately.

On September 18, 2014, the Issuer used a portion of the proceeds
from the New Notes to terminate the Issuer's obligations under the
deferred payment agreement with the WRG Asbestos PI Trust, dated
February 3, 2014, for approximately $632 million on the terms and
conditions set forth in the obligation termination agreement,
dated August 1, 2014, by and among Grace, the Issuer and the PI
Trust. The remaining proceeds from the New Notes will be used: (i)
to partially fund the settlement of the warrant issued to the PI
Trust; (ii) to repay amounts outstanding under the Issuer's
revolving credit facility; and (iii) for other general corporate
purposes.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Records $190,000 Settlement Cost
-------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company recorded $190,000 settlement amount for
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended  August 30, 2014.

The Company states: "From time to time and in the ordinary course
of business, we are a party to, or a target of, lawsuits, claims,
investigations and proceedings, including product liability,
personal injury, contract, patent and intellectual property,
environmental, health and safety, tax and employment matters.
While we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, we
have concluded, based upon currently available information, that
the ultimate resolution of any pending matter, individually or in
the aggregate, including the asbestos litigation described in the
following paragraphs, will not have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.

"We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs
have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally
bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages
(both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases,
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result
of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically
dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the
plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury
occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is
generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and under certain circumstances,
settlements and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under
these agreements, we are required under certain circumstances to
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to
delineate our rights under certain insurance policies, in October
2009, we commenced a for the District of Minnesota. Additional
insurers have been brought into the action to address issues
related to the scope of their coverage. We recently entered into a
settlement agreement with the defendant insurers in this case that
provided for the allocation of defense costs and settlements in
the future. The allocation under the settlement agreement depends
on the outcome of an appeal of two issues to the United States
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"For the 39 Weeks Ended August 30, 2014, recorded $190,000,000
settlement amount for asbestos-related lawsuits and claims.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."

H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of
adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The
Company operates in four segments: Americas Adhesives,
Construction Products, EIMEA (Europe, India, Middle East and
Africa) and Asia Pacific. Industrial adhesives represent its core
product offering. Customers use its adhesives products in
manufacturing common consumer and industrial goods, including food
and beverage containers, disposable diapers, windows, doors,
flooring, appliances, sportswear, footwear, multi-wall bags, water
filtration products, insulation, textiles and electronics. It has
established a variety of product offerings for residential
construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives, grout,
sealants and related products. These products are sold primarily
in its Construction Products operating segment. On June 6, 2013,
it acquired Plexbond Quimica, S.A. In September 2014, H.B. Fuller
Co acquired ProSpec Construction Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Reports 73 Pending Suits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There were 73 pending asbestos-related lawsuits against Ameren
Corporation and its subsidiaries, 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: "Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois
have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers.
Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case
varies, with the average number of parties being 84 as of June 30,
2014. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that, if awarded at
trial, typically would be shared among the various defendants.

"As of June 30, 2014, there were 73 pending asbestos-related
lawsuits filed against the Ameren Companies. However, the figure
does not equal the sum of the subsidiary unit lawsuits because
some of the lawsuits name multiple Ameren entities as defendants."

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Corp. Reports $24-Mil. Fibro Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries had $24 million total
liabilities for asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

At June 30, 2014, Ameren, Ameren Missouri, and Ameren Illinois had
liabilities of $12 million, $5 million, and $7 million,
respectively, recorded to represent their best estimate of their
obligations related to asbestos claims.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that
was established when Ameren acquired IP. At June 30, 2014, the
trust fund balance was $22 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The
rider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historical
service territory.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Continues to Defend Fibro-related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. 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.

Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CERC or its predecessor companies 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
CERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by CERC's subsidiaries. CERC anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although
their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CERC
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 its 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.  Centerpoint Energy Resources. Corp. and
its subsidiaries are indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $360.3-Mil. Fibro Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $360.3
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

The Company states: "With respect to asbestos only, at June 30,
2014, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of $360.3 million, or
94.9%, of total A&E reserves, of which $286.6 million was for
assumed business and $73.7 million was for direct business.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent our best estimate of the ultimate
liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss
payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant
amount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 7.7 years at June 30, 2014.
These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."

Everest Re Group, Ltd. through its subsidiaries, is principally
engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company
underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with
ceding companies. The Company operates in four segments: U.S.
Reinsurance, International, Bermuda and Insurance. The Company
underwrites insurance principally through general agent
relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers. The Company's
principal operating subsidiaries include Bermuda Re, Everest
International Reinsurance, Ltd., Ireland Re, Everest Re, Everest
Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National Insurance Company,
Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest Security Insurance
Company, Mt. McKinley and Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 269 PI Cases at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp., is a co-defendant in approximately 269
cases asserting claims alleging asbestos-related personal injury,
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 were a co-defendant in approximately 269
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 612 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only seven asbestos cases, involving 26 plaintiffs,
that plead specified damages. In each of the seven cases, the
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a
variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three
cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the
amount of $3.0 million for four separate causes of action and $1.0
million for another cause of action and punitive damages in the
amount of $10.0 million. In the fourth case, the plaintiff has
alleged against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive
damages, each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate
causes of action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged
compensatory damages in the amount of $20.0 million for three
separate causes of action and $5.0 million for another cause of
action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million. In the
sixth case, plaintiffs have alleged compensatory and punitive
damages in the amount of $10.0 million for each of the five counts
and one count of $5.0 million for the sixth count. In the
remaining case, the plaintiff has alleged against each named
defendant compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
$50.0 million, for four separate causes of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome
of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-
related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that
the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching
this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being
dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been
improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many
cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases,
the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from
alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims
against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages
alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally,
we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos
cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because
the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of
the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) conducts its business
primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its direct subsidiary,
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (Park-Ohio). The Company is an
industrial supply chain logistics and diversified manufacturing
business operating in three segments: Supply Technologies,
Aluminum Products and Manufactured Products. Supply Technologies
provides the Company's customers with Total Supply Management
services for a range of specialty production components. The
Company's Aluminum Products business manufactures cast and
machined aluminum components, and the Company's Manufactured
Products business is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. In June 2014, Park-Ohio Holdings Corp announced that its
Supply Technologies (ST) business acquires Apollo Aerospace Group
(Apollo) headquartered in West Midlands, England, with operating
locations in England, France, Poland, and India.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek, Inc., continues to defend itself in 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 29, 2014.

The Company has been named, along with multiple other defendants,
in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with business operations
previously acquired by the Company, but which are no longer owned.
During the Company's ownership, none of the businesses produced or
sold asbestos-containing products. With respect to these claims,
the Company believes that it has no such liability. For such
claims, the Company is uninsured and either contractually
indemnified against liability, or contractually obligated to
defend and indemnify the purchaser of these former Magnetek
business operations. The Company aggressively seeks dismissal from
these proceedings. Management does not believe the asbestos
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations. Given the nature of the issues, uncertainty of the
ultimate outcome, and inability to estimate the potential loss, no
amounts have been reserved for these matters.

Magnetek, Inc., is a provider of digital power control systems
that are used to control motion and power primarily in material
handling, elevator, and mining applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 2,569 New Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,569
new asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2014.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies
to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution
of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual
or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that:

   (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the
       plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the
       plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or
       sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured
       plaintiffs;

  (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan
       Life Insurance Company;

(iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the
       cause of the plaintiffs' injuries;

  (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of
       asbestos were known; and

   (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
       expired.

During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have
granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 5,898
asbestos-related claims in 2013. During the six months ended June
30, 2014, and 2013, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received
approximately 2,569 and 3,129 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought,
the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its
ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty,
and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and
subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited
and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can
affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims,
the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of
disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of
new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in
the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the
possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts
to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the
dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of
any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its
estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts
presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its
past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable
liability for asbestos claims already asserted against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but
not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii)
the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and
annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including
studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature
regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States,
assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and
considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos
liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These
variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability
analysis for asbestos-related claims through June 30, 2014.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiaries
(collectively, "MLIC" or the "Company") is a leading provider of
insurance, annuities and employee benefit programs throughout the
United States. The Company offers life insurance and annuities to
individuals, as well as group insurance and retirement & savings
products and services to corporations and other institutions.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: RPM PI Deal Ends if Plan Not Filed by Oct. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc.'s agreement in principle with an official
representatives of current and future asbestos-related personal
injury claimants will automatically terminate if a reorganization
plan is not filed by the Company's subsidiaries by October 31,
2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
May 31, 2014.

The Company states: "The Specialty Products Holding Corp. and
Bondex International, Inc., Chapter 11 proceedings involve various
risks and uncertainties that could have a material effect on us.

"We have entered into an agreement in principle with the official
representatives of current and future claimants that would resolve
all present and future asbestos personal injury claims related to
Bondex and other related entities. The agreement contemplates the
filing of a plan or plans of reorganization and related documents
(the "Plan") with the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware
(the "Bankruptcy Court"). The Plan will be subject to approval of
the claimants, as well as the Bankruptcy Court and U.S. District
Court.

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

   * On or before the second anniversary of the Effective Date, an
additional $102.5 million in cash, RPM International stock or a
combination thereof (at our discretion in this and all subsequent
cases) will be deposited into the Trust;

   * On or before the third anniversary of the Effective Date, an
additional $120 million in cash, RPM International stock or a
combination thereof will be deposited into the Trust; and

   * On or before the fourth anniversary of the Effective Date, a
final payment of $125 million in cash, RPM International stock or
a combination thereof will be deposited into the Trust.

"Of the first $450 million payment, $2.5 million relates to the
resolution of all present and future asbestos personal injury
claims related to NMBFil, Inc., an indirect subsidiary of RPM
International, which is the subject of a separate settlement term
sheet. A portion of the payments due under the promissory note(s)
will be secured by a right to the equity of Bondex and related
chapter 11 debtor entities. All present and future asbestos
personal injury claims against Bondex and the other related
entities would be channeled to and paid by the Trust.

"The agreement in principle will automatically terminate if the
Plan is not filed by October 31, 2014. Pursuant to the terms of
the agreement, the Plan must be confirmed and effective no later
than October 31, 2015, otherwise simple interest at the rate of
3.45% will begin to accrue on the aggregate funding amount of the
trust through the effective date of the Plan.

"There is no guaranty that the Plan will be filed or confirmed or
of the timing of any such confirmation. If the Plan is not filed
or if the Plan, or a substantially similar plan, is not confirmed,
the interests of SPHC, Bondex and RPM International may be
significantly and adversely affected, SPHC and Bondex will remain
in chapter 11, the amount of the asbestos liabilities of SPHC and
Bondex will remain unresolved and the terms, timing and impact of
any plan of reorganization ultimately confirmed will be unknown.
If the Plan is not confirmed, the amount of SPHC's and Bondex's
asbestos personal injury liabilities will not be resolved and will
continue to be subject to substantial dispute and uncertainty as
the appeals process with respect to the estimation ruling will
then move forward. If the Plan is not confirmed, the amount of the
asbestos personal injury liabilities could ultimately be
determined to be significantly different from the amount agreed to
by the parties in the agreement. This difference could be material
to our financial position, cash flows and results of operations.
In the event the Plan is not confirmed it is unclear whether any
channeling injunction entered in connection with a plan of
reorganization will extend to all non-filing affiliates of the
filing entities, including RPM International.

"As a result of the chapter 11 filing, the filing entities are
precluded from paying dividends to shareholders and making
payments on any pre-bankruptcy filing accounts or notes payable
that are due and owing to any other entity within the RPM group of
companies (the "Pre-Petition Intercompany Payables") and other
pre-petition creditors during the pendency of the Chapter 11
proceedings, without the Bankruptcy Court's approval. If the Plan
is not confirmed, no assurances can be given that any of the Pre-
Petition Intercompany Payables will be paid or otherwise satisfied
in connection with the confirmation of an alternative plan of
reorganization. As of May 30, 2010, the day prior to the Chapter
11 filing, SPHC and its subsidiaries had Pre-Petition Intercompany
Payables of approximately $209.6 million and pre-petition
intercompany receivables from other entities within the RPM group
of companies (other than subsidiaries of SPHC) of approximately
$87.3 million.

"On May 20, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware issued an opinion estimating the current and future
asbestos claims associated with Bondex and SPHC at approximately
$1.17 billion. The estimation hearing represents one step in the
legal process in helping to determine the amount of potential
funding for a 524(g) asbestos trust. Bondex and SPHC firmly
believe that the opinion substantially overstates the amount of
their liability and is not supported by the facts or the law.
Bondex and SPHC and we have filed appeals of the decision with the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware and
sought certification of the appeal directly to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but were denied. The
appeals remain pending before the District Court. The asbestos
claimants and the future claims representative have moved to
dismiss the appeals, arguing that the estimation order is not a
final, appealable order. Bondex, SPHC and we believe that the
order is final and appealable, and that, even if it were not, the
appeals should be treated as motions to appeal which should be
granted. Assuming that the motion to dismiss the appeals is not
granted, it is anticipated that the appeal process could take two
to three years. We believe that the Bankruptcy Court's estimation
opinion, if not vacated on appeal, may increase the likelihood
that claims may be asserted against RPM International alleging
that we are liable for the asbestos liabilities of the filing
entities. We expect that these appeals will be stayed pending
confirmation of the Plan.

"At a hearing held on November 13, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court
granted the motion of the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal
Injury Claimants and the Future Claimants' Representative
(collectively the "ACC/FCR") for standing to pursue the SPHC
estate claims against us, certain of our directors and executive
officers, and third party advisors. We anticipated that the
ACC/FCR might be permitted to pursue claims on behalf of the SPHC
and Bondex estates against us. We believe that the alleged SPHC
estate claims are without merit and, if such claims are made,
intend to contest them vigorously, but if the ACC/FCR are
successful in any such effort, it may increase the amount that RPM
International may need to contribute to any 524(g) trust. The
ACC/FCR have agreed not to proceed with any such claims unless the
Plan is not confirmed.

"There is also a possibility that the Bankruptcy Court could lift
the injunction precluding litigation of asbestos claims against us
and permitting such claims against us in the tort system. Although
we believe we have no responsibility for asbestos liabilities of
the filing entities, we cannot assure you that the resolution of
such claims, or the perception that RPM International may have a
risk of exposure to liability for the asbestos-related liabilities
of the filing entities, will not have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, results of operations or the market price
of our securities."

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hallum" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related lawsuit filed by John Hallum and Janet Hallum
against Andrea Electronics Corporation 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.

In May 2014, John Hallum and Janet Hallum, filed a lawsuit in the
County Court of Dallas County, Texas, against Alcatel-Lucent USA,
Inc. and over 40 other defendants, including the Company, alleging
that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested,
packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing
products that contributed to the their contraction of asbestos-
related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related pathologies. The
Company retained legal counsel and a dismissal via a non-suit was
obtained on July 11, 2014.

Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing,
developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products
for improving speech-based applications software and
communications that require clear voice signals. The Company
operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software
Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea
Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software
Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for
applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a
range of hardware and software platforms. These products
incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise
reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone
technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a
range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and
automobiles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded to Andrea Electronics
---------------------------------------------------------------
A summary judgment was awarded to Andrea Electronics Corporation
in an asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Wayne F. Jones and Roberta
Jones, 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 May 2013, Wayne F. Jones and Roberta Jones, filed a law suit in
the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 84
Lumber Company and over 120 other defendants, including the
Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured,
designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos
containing products that contributed to the their contraction of
asbestos-related mesothelioma and other asbestos-related
pathologies. The Company retained legal counsel and filed a
response to the compliant. In February 2014, Andrea sought and was
granted a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Entry of
Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b).

Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing,
developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products
for improving speech-based applications software and
communications that require clear voice signals. The Company
operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software
Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea
Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software
Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for
applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a
range of hardware and software platforms. These products
incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise
reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone
technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a
range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and
automobiles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Edwards" Suit v. Andrea Electronics Is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Audrey
Edwards against Andrea Electronics Corporation remains pending,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon
Leroy Edwards, filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Providence
County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90 other
defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company
processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed,
marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to
the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The Company received service of
process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and
has filed a response to the complaint. The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to file a Motion for Summary
Judgment to that affect. Accordingly, the Company does not believe
the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.

Andrea Electronics Corporation (Andrea) is engaged in designing,
developing and manufacturing microphone technologies and products
for improving speech-based applications software and
communications that require clear voice signals. The Company
operates in two segments: Andrea DSP Microphone and Audio Software
Products, and Andrea Anti-Noise Products. The Company's Andrea
Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Microphone and Audio Software
Products and Andrea Anti-Noise Products have been designed for
applications that are controlled by or depend on speech across a
range of hardware and software platforms. These products
incorporate its DSP, noise cancellation (NC), active noise
reduction (ANR) and active noise cancellation (ANC) microphone
technologies, and are designed to cancel background noise in a
range of noisy environments, such as homes, offices, factories and
automobiles.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Locker Group Had 16 Cases as of June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Locker Group Incorporated had 16 unresolved 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.

Beginning in September 1998 and continuing through June 30, 2014,
the Company has been named as an additional defendant in
approximately 241 cases pending in state court in Massachusetts
and one in the state of Washington. The plaintiffs in each case
assert that a division of the Company manufactured and furnished
components containing asbestos to a shipyard during the period
from 1948 to 1972 and that injury resulted from exposure to such
products. The assets of this division were sold by the Company in
1973. During the process of discovery in certain of these actions,
documents from sources outside the Company have been produced that
indicate the Company appears to have been included in the chain of
title for certain wall panels that contained asbestos and were
delivered to the Massachusetts shipyards. Defense of these cases
has been assumed by the Company's insurance carrier, subject to a
reservation of rights. Settlement agreements have been entered in
approximately 40 cases with funds authorized and provided by the
Company's insurance carrier. Further, over 185 cases have been
terminated as to the Company without liability to the Company
under Massachusetts procedural rules. Therefore, the balance of
unresolved cases against the Company as of June 30, 2014, the most
recent date for which information is available, is approximately
16 cases. While the Company cannot estimate potential damages or
predict what the ultimate resolution of these asbestos cases may
be because the discovery proceedings on the cases are not
complete, based upon the Company's experience to date with similar
cases, as well as the assumption that insurance coverage will
continue to be provided with respect to these cases, at the
present time, the Company does not believe that the outcome of
these cases will have a significant adverse impact on the
Company's operations or financial condition.

American Locker Group Incorporated is a manufacturer of lockers,
locks and keys with a range of applications for use in numerous
industries. The Company serves customers in a range of industries
in all 50 states and in Canada, Mexico, Europe, Asia and South
America. The Company's products can be categorized as either
mailboxes or lockers. Mailboxes are used for the delivery of mail,
packages and other parcels to multi-tenant facilities. Lockers are
used for applications other than mail delivery, and its lockers
are key-controlled checking lockers. The Company's products and
services include recreation lockers, coin operated keys and locks,
United States Postal Service (USPS) approved multi-tenant
mailboxes, private mail delivery mailboxes, electronic
distribution lockers, evidence lockers, laptop lockers and mini-
check lockers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against 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 is a defendant along with a number of other parties in
lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat
technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-
informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know
whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company. Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that
the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years. Some of these other
primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for
these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's
tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have
accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or
advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because
settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed
to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it
will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under
the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. However,
unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the
asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for
the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved
in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy
years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are
insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these
lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial
position or results of operations.

IntriCon Corporation (IntriCon) is an international company
engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing
body-worn devices. IntriCon serves the body-worn device market by
designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing micro-
miniature products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies
and complete assemblies, primarily for bio-telemetry devices,
hearing instruments and professional audio communication devices.
The Company operates in one operating segment, the body-worn
device segment. The Company's core technologies are focused on
three main markets: medical, hearing health and professional audio
communications. In October 2012, it sold its 50% ownership
interest in Global Coils.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Awarded Summary Judgment in FOIA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Paul Mancuso brought an action under the Freedom of
Information Act seeking to compel the production of documents
allegedly withheld by Defendant United States Environmental
Protection Agency.  The action stems from the Plaintiff's previous
conviction for multiple counts of illegal removal of asbestos and
related crimes.  The Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.

In a memorandum-decision and order dated Sept. 22, 2014, Judge
Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York granted the Defendant's motion, holding that
the Defendant's submissions are facially adequate and,
accordingly, are presumed to have been made in good faith.  Judge
Kahn also ruled that the Plaintiff's argument that the requested
air monitoring reports "must exist," and therefore the Defendant's
failure to provide them evidences bad faith, is unavailing.

The case is PAUL MANCUSO, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendant, NO. 5:12-CV-1027
(LEK/TWD)(N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Kahn's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/CuO7xwfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Ruling Issued in Metso-ITT Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Metso Automation USA, Inc. and defendant ITT Corporation
each seek contractual indemnification from the other for damages
incurred defending asbestos-related product-liability suits.  The
parties both rely on an indemnity clause contained in an agreement
executed in 1983 between their predecessors-in-interest.

The complaint originally stated a claim for, among other things,
declaratory judgment as to the parties' rights under the 1983
Agreement.  On August 13, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismissed Metso's declaratory judgment
claim on the ground that it was duplicative of the other
substantive claims in the complaint.  Metso has moved to vacate
the Court's previous ruling on the declaratory judgment claim and
enter declaratory judgment interpreting the 1983 Agreement in
general terms.  ITT opposes vacating the Court's previous ruling
and has moved for summary judgment on the contractual
indemnification claims.

U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, in Massachusetts, in a
memorandum and order dated Sept. 22, 2014, granted in part and
denied in part the motions.  Judge Saylor granted ITT's motion for
summary judgment as to the Metso actions (Andrew, Dombrowski,
Horsham, Range, Sether, Carmine, Bludworth, Mahar, and Sumner) and
denied as to the ITT actions (Boggess, Brown, Chancey, Edwards,
Fischerkeller, Hunt, Oxley, Spurlock, and White).

The case is METSO AUTOMATION USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. ITT
CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-10514-FDS (D. Mass.).
A full-text copy of Judge Saylor's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ovLs88from Leagle.com.

Metso Automation USA, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
James L. Ackerman, Esq. -- jackerman@wadacklaw.com -- and Lawrence
J. Mullen, Esq. -- lmullen@wadacklaw.com -- at Wadland & Ackerman.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Starnes" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ralph O'Neill Starnes, et al., filed a diversity action
asserting seven claims for relief in their amended complaint.
All of the claims center upon Mr. Starnes having contracted
mesothelioma from breathing asbestos dust.  Count One alleges
negligence; Count Two alleges breach of implied warranty; Count
Three alleges willful and wanton conduct; Count Four alleges false
representation; Count Five alleges failure to warn; and Counts Six
and Seven assert claims against defendants other than those moving
for summary judgment.  All of the Plaintiffs' claims are brought
pursuant to North Carolina law.

Summary judgment motions were filed by seven defendants: FMC
Corporation on behalf of its former subsidiary, and originally
sued as Crosby Valve, Inc.; FMC Corporation on behalf of its
former Peerless Pump business and originally sued as FMC
Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Peerless
Pump Company; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC., formerly known
as Peerless Pump Co.; Gardner Denver, Inc.; Watts Water
Technologies, Inc. sued as successor to Powers Regulatory Company,
Inc.; Ingersoll Rand Company; and Trane U.S. Inc., formerly known
as American Standard Companies, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to American Radiator Company also known as
Ideal Boiler.

Judge Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, in a memorandum
order and opinion dated Sept. 23, 2014, concluded that all seven
of the Defendants' forecasts of evidence, taken in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs as the non-movants, is sufficient to
establish that no genuine dispute exists as to any of the material
facts.  Accordingly, Judge Reidinger ruled that the seven named
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law and should
be dismissed from the action.

The case is RALPH O'NEIL STARNES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-CV-360-
MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Reidinger's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/120Fpkfrom Leagle.com.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin,
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Walkup" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware adopted the report and recommendations issued by
Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon in the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled LARRY WALKUP and BETTY WALKUP, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORP., a/k/a BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., et al., Defendants, CIV.
NO. 12-1635-SLR-SRF (D. Del.).

Magistrate Fallon concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to identify
sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment motions filed by
defendants Nash Engineering Company and Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation.  Judge Robinson found that Mr. Walkup's deposition
testimony is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material
facts as to whether he was exposed to either defendant's products.
Accordingly, Judge Robinson adopted Magistrate Fallon's
recommendation granting the defendants' motions for summary
judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's memorandum dated Sept. 8,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/6wnEQgfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Affirms Ruling in "May" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md.App. 1, 34, cert. denied, 394
Md. 494 (1998), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held that
an automobile manufacturer could not be held liable in tort for
failing to warn of the latent dangers of asbestos-containing
replacement parts that it neither manufactured nor placed into the
stream of commerce.

In the asbestos-related case captioned PHILIP ROYCE MAY, ET AL.,
v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ETC. ET AL., NO. 2670,
SEPTEMBER TERM, 2012 (Md. Spec. App.), the Court of Special
Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision and reaffirmed the Wood
decision and, in accordance with a number of out-of-state cases
that have followed in its wake, hold that the manufacturers of
steam pumps in Navy ships cannot be held liable for failing to
warn of the dangers of asbestos-containing replacement parts
(gaskets and packing) that they neither manufactured nor placed
into the stream of commerce.

A full-text copy of the Decision in the "May" case dated Oct. 3,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/o3R7dufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in "Haldaman" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant, Daniel Haldaman, personal representative of the estate
of Gerda W. Haldaman, deceased, and plaintiff in the an asbestos
mass tort litigation, appeals from the final judgment entered May
23, 2012, which also rendered final a trial court's earlier orders
granting summary judgment to each of Eaton Corporation, as
successor in interest to Cutler-Hammer, Inc.; Kentile Floors Inc.;
P & H Mining Equipment, f/k/a Harnischfeger Corporation; Reading
Crane & Engineering; Morgan Engineering, f/k/a Morgan Crane; CBS
Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; and General
Electric Company.

After careful review, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in a
memorandum dated Oct. 3, 2014, affirmed and stated: "While the
evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Appellant tends to
show that, in general, asbestos containing products were present
in the workplace during Decedent's husband's years of employment,
and that he may have at times been around such products when they
created dust, there is no evidence of specific exposure to any of
Appellees' asbestos containing products.  More particularly, we
agree that the deposition testimony and affidavits of Ray
Haldaman's co-workers, John Weiss, Joseph Anfuso, Brian Gaugler,
Michael Carl, John D. Wagner, Theodore Potteiger, Anthony
Lubenesky, and Thomas G. Jones, relied on by Appellant, failed to
establish an issue of material fact relative to Ray Haldaman's
exposure to asbestos dust from any of Appellees' products.  Those
statements identifying particular products and times, did not
mention the presence of Ray Haldaman, and specific references to
Ray Haldaman did not place him in proximity of specific asbestos
containing products at specific times.  All that Appellant
established was general potential exposure from various sources
throughout the workplace during Ray Haldaman's employment tenure.
No nexus between Ray Haldaman, and by extension Decedent, and any
of Appellees' products was established.  Accordingly, we adopt the
thorough analysis of the law and facts as developed by the
Honorable Sandra Mazer Moss in her August 22, 2012 opinion as our
own for purposes of further appellate review and affirm the orders
granting summary judgment."

The appeals case is DANIEL HALDAMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE ESTATE OF GERDA W. HALDAMAN, Appellant, v. EATON
CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.,
Appellee. DANIEL HALDAMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
ESTATE OF GERDA W. HALDAMAN, Appellant, v. P & H MINING EQUIPMENT
F/K/A HARNISCHFEGER CORPORATION, Appellee. DANIEL HALDAMAN, AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF GERDA W. HALDAMAN,
Appellant, v. READING CRANE & ENGINEERING, Appellee. DANIEL
HALDAMAN, AS PERSONAL RPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF GERDA W.
HALDAMAN, Appellant, v. MORGAN ENGINEERING F/K/A MORGAN CRANE,
Appellee. DANIEL HALDAMAN, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
ESTATE OF GERDA W. HALDAMAN, Appellant v. CBS CORPORATION, F/K/A
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellee. DANIEL HALDAMAN, AS
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF GERDA W. HALDAMAN,
Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee, NOS. 1170 EDA
2012, 1172 EDA 2012, 1173 EDA 2012, 1174 EDA 2012, 1175 EDA 2012,
1176 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/rqL8H4from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Day" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alfready Day, Sr., filed a Petition for Damages in state
court seeking recovery for injuries, including the development of
lung cancer, allegedly sustained as a result of exposure to
asbestos and asbestos-containing products found aboard vessels
while working for various shipowners from 1956 to 1994.  The
Plaintiff named as defendants Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc.;
Crowley Marine Services, Inc., as successor by merger to Delta
Steamship Lines, Inc., f/k/a Mississippi Shipping Co., Inc.; Delta
Steamship Lines, Inc.; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; Trinidad
Corporation; Apex Oil Company, Inc. (identified by plaintiff as
successor-in-interest to Trinidad Corporation); and Waterman
Steamship Corporation. Plaintiff asserted claims under general
maritime law and the Jones Act.

Alcoa removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, alleging that the District Court has
original, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under general
maritime Law.  The Defendant asserted that the plaintiff's Jones
Act claim does not prohibit removal of the general maritime
claims.  The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand.

Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger in Louisiana, in a report
dated Sept. 12, 2014, recommended that the Plaintiff's motion to
remand be granted, noting that the Defendants did not address how
the Plaintiff's state court suit can be removed when it contains a
"claim" that is statutorily non-removable.

The case is ALFREADY DAY, SR., v. ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC.,
ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-317-BAJ-SCR (M.D. La.).  A full-text
copy of Magistrate Riedlinger's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/JeD2TXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Recommends Remand of "Marvin" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana issued a report dated
Sept. 12, 2014, recommending the remand to state court of the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled SPRAWLIN MARVIN,
v. FARRELL LINES, INC., ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-316-JJB-SCR
(M.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Riedlinger's Decision
is available at http://is.gd/EzNaFxfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Wins Summary Judgment in "Shimko" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ronald Shimko and Carol Shimko allege that, due to
Defendant Honeywell International Inc.'s wrongful conduct, Mr.
Shimko was exposed to asbestos and, as a result of that exposure,
developed pleural disease and asbestosis.  Honeywell filed a
motion for summary judgment, which the Superior Court of Delaware,
New Castle County, granted in an opinion dated Sept. 30, 2014, a
full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FrhVEdfrom
Leagle.com.

In granting summary judgment, the Superior Court held that the
Shimkos' claims against Honeywell are too speculative to survive
summary judgment, noting that Mr. Shimko testified that he
installed Bendix brakes on one occasion but that he "probably
used" Bendix products on other occasions.  The Superior Court
concluded that the Shimkos have failed to present sufficient
evidence to permit a jury finding that Mr. Shimko was exposed to
an asbestos-containing product attributable to Honeywell.

The case is RONALD SHIMKO and CAROL SHIMKO, Plaintiffs, v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. NO. N10C-
12-238 ASB (Del. Super.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Denied Summary Judgment in "Ruppel" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Henry Ruppel filed his First Amended Complaint in the
Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Madison County,
Illinois on May 14, 2012, alleging that he sustained injuries as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products attributable to
Crane Company and various other defendants.  General Electric
Company subsequently removed the Plaintiff's suit to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges state law claims
of negligence, negligent manufacturing, and spoliation against a
number of defendants, including Crane.  Crane filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment on September 23, 2013, asserting it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law on all counts.  The Plaintiff
timely filed a response on November 27, 2013, after being granted
an extension of time to respond.  Crane argues for summary
judgment on the claim of spoliation to which the Plaintiff
indicated that the spoliation claim will be dismissed.

Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson in Illinois issued a
memorandum and opinion dated Sept. 30, 2014, denying Crane's
motion for summary judgment after determining that the Plaintiff
has produced evidence tending to show that the valves manufactured
by Crane were inherently dangerous as manufactured.

The case is HENRY RUPPEL, Plaintiff, v. CRANE CO., Defendant, CASE
NO. 3:12-CV-293-DGW-SCW (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of
Magistrate Wilkerson's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Qm1EQYfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Wins Dismissal of "New" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John and Beth New claim that John New contracted lung
cancer after being exposed to asbestos while working at various
automobile part and repair businesses.  The Plaintiffs filed a
four-count lawsuit in Missouri state court against the various
defendants that supplied the products that allegedly caused his
injuries.  Defendant Ford Motor Company removed the case to United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, alleging diversity jurisdiction.

Defendant Navistar Inc., filed a motion to dismiss for
insufficient service of process.  Finding that the Plaintiffs
failed to serve Navistar within the 120-day time limit imposed
under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and that
they have failed to show either "good cause" or "excusable
neglect" for their untimely service, the District Court granted
Navistar's motion.

The case is JOHN NEW, and BETH NEW, Plaintiffs, v. BORG-WARNER
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. 13-00675-CV-W-DGK (W.D. Mo.).
A full-text copy of the Oct. 3, 2014, order penned by U.S.
District Judge Greg Kays is available at http://is.gd/qzIAGifrom
Leagle.com.

Hennessy Industries, Defendant, represented by James Hayes Ryan,
Gordon & Rees, LLP, John Keen, Gordon & Rees, LLP & Robert Daniel
Connealy, Gordon & Rees, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Awarded Following Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, in an Oct. 3, 2014 order and reasons,
granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff in
the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled Smith, v.
UNION CARBIDE CORP., ET AL., SECTION: "J" (5), CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-6323 (E.D. La.).  In her summary judgment motion, the Plaintiff
asserted that there is and can be no liability found on the part
of defendant Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc.  The summary judgment motion
was filed following a settlement of the Plaintiff's claims with
Taylor.

In granting the summary judgment motion, Judge Barbier noted that
the other defendants have not opposed the motion, choosing not to
attempt to present evidence showing that there is genuine issue of
material fact precluding summary judgment on the issue.

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/BelgqXfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Landfill Facing Fibro Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
LocalSYR.com reported that ruins of a former antique store and a
karate business have been piled in a heap in Oneida, New York,
since early July. The biggest obstacle to getting it cleaned up
appears to be money.

"They have to truck it all the way out to Seneca Falls. That's the
nearest dump that allows it from our area," said Heath Waterman,
who owns part of the property.

He has a contractor lined up to haul away his portion of the
rubble, once he has the money saved to pay for the trip.

"The fact is that we do not accept friable asbestos in the Madison
County landfill," explained Madison County Department of Solid
Waste and Sanitation Director James Zecca.

Too small to handle that type of waste, the Madison County
landfill is getting swamped with calls from homeowners wondering
what to do with materials containing asbestos.

"With all of the storms that we've been having, unfortunately
people's homes have been damaged and they are doing some major
renovations, and in worse case scenarios it is complete demolition
of their homes," Zecca said.

The landfill director is hoping to educate property owners about
the rules. Zecca recommends a survey by state certified inspectors
before any renovation work begins, identifying areas for removing
friable or non-friable asbestos separately.

Zecca says powdery friable asbestos, often found on pipe
insulation and various building materials, can cost up to $200 a
ton to unload in other landfills. However, non-friable asbestos on
floor tiles or roof shingles, among other things, is accepted at
the Madison County landfill, for far less money.

An inspector will help property owners determine the difference
before they start tearing a room apart, so they can contain
removal of friable asbestos separately, minimizing trips to other
landfills.

"Once the building is down, there is no way of identifying where
the asbestos is located. So, what the state does is, they step in
and say all of the debris, the total house now is considered
contaminated with friable asbestos."

There's no proof that Waterman's building contained friable
asbestos. But, there's also no proof it did not contain the waste.
He didn't have an updated asbestos report on record when the City
of Oneida ordered an emergency demolition after the wall
collapsed.

Now, as a precaution, all of the rubble is classified as possibly
containing friable asbestos.

Without the money to transport the debris at the higher rate of
disposal, Waterman has a mess that he hopes others can avoid.

"You'd think for something so dangerous they would have more dumps
available, so you wouldn't have to truck it two hours one way,"
Waterman said.

Zecca recommends that homeowners hire professionals to handle
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Arctic College Students Concerned About Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that a couple of minor renovations are raising
major concerns for students and staff at Nunavut Arctic College's
Nunatta residence in Iqaluit, Canada.

Nunatta residence is often referred to as the "Old Res" and it is
one of the oldest buildings in Iqaluit. It was built in the early
1950s to house American air force crews.  Nunavut's Department of
Community and Government Services owns the building, which is
undergoing renovations to remove mould and a front porch area
while students and staff continue to use the facility.

Jennifer Archer, the college's co-chair for Occupational Health
and Safety Standards, says staff and students are concerned for
their health as the building contains asbestos.

"Basically most of the materials in this building actually contain
asbestos and need to be treated as such," she said.

Asbestos was commonly used in building construction until the
1970s. Breathing in asbestos fibres can cause respiratory ailments
including lung cancer. The risk of exposure to asbestos is higher
when the building materials are disturbed, such as during
renovations and repairs.

A report prepared for the Nunavut government in 2003 and obtained
by CBC News details where asbestos is found in the Nunatta
residence, including drywall, ceiling tiles, and vinyl flooring.
It states that the asbestos-containing materials "do not currently
pose a risk" but would if "the material was damaged . . . removed
or repaired." It also spells out how the asbestos should be
removed.

Archer says faculty members approached her about the renovations,
which they felt contravened those standards.

"There was no vapour barrier. There were no safety warnings put
up; there were students and staff working in very close
proximity," she said.  "There was quite a bit of dust being
generated."

The big concern for Archer is that she says workers on site didn't
seem to know they were handling asbestos.

The Department of Community and Government Services says it is
aware of the asbestos, that it is contained and that students and
staff are safe.

CGS says samples and air quality tests are now being done.  The
department has had asbestos removed from other buildings in
Iqaluit but the Old Res is the only place where people are living
and working alongside the repairs.

Archer says some instructors have cancelled classes while
renovations are underway.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Complicates Roofing Work at McKean County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Knight, writing for The Bradford Era, reported that the
commissioners at McKean County, in Pennsylvania, have authorized a
contract with Northeastern Environmental Management of Bradford to
encapsulate up to 1,000 linear feet of asbestos-containing pipe
insulation in the McKean County Courthouse.

Commissioners Joe DeMott, Al Pingie and Cliff Lane took that
action at their meeting. They credited maintenance director Ed
Tronetti and others with discovering the asbestos in the course of
prepping areas for heating, ventilation and air conditioning
upgrades.

The insulation is on piping between floors, meaning over the
ceilings of ground floor offices in the A, B and C wings of the
courthouse. The encapsulation cost per linear foot is $29, making
the potential cost of the project up to $29,000.

The pipe insulation was missed or omitted when there was a major
asbestos abatement project at the courthouse in the 1980s.

According to the proposal from Northeastern Environmental
Management, the encapsulation will be accomplished by applying a
wet wrap seal encasement product. "Negative air" (a slight vacuum)
will be maintained in each area being worked on. This is to
prevent the escape of asbestos particles. Workers will use glove
bags, or mini containments attached to the pipe areas, inside
which workers manipulate tools and materials.

Northeastern Environmental Management will work on weekends and
over holidays when necessary, keeping to a minimum the disruption
of regular operations in the offices.

A Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry certified asbestos
abatement contractor, Northeastern Environmental Management was
organized as a limited liability corporation in 2010. It is headed
by Daniel Kellam, and is said to have two employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Gary Demolition Halts Bank Project
------------------------------------------------------------
Carole Carlson, writing for Post-Tribune, reported that demolition
came to a halt on the former Gary State Bank renovation project,
in Indiana, after the state said the contractor had improperly
disposed of asbestos.  Workers were demolishing a building at 540
Broadway, adjacent to Gary State Bank, in order to construct a
drive-up window for the new bank tenant.

Project developer Vance Kenney, of Gateway Partners LLC in Hobart,
said his demolition contractor halted work after spotting the
transite asbestos in the debris that had fallen off the facade.
But city activist Jim Nowacki said he blew the whistle, calling
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management after seeing
the asbestos, once used in siding as a fireproofing material, in
front of the building.

"They started knocking it down on the sidewalk. I made a complaint
and the state sent IDEM inspectors out," he said. "The inspectors
said you can't do anything till you remove the transite asbestos."

IDEM spokesman Dan Goldblatt said inspectors did observe improper
disposal of asbestos.

"We are concerned, it can lead to transite asbestos in the air,"
he said.

Goldblatt said IDEM was aware of the presence of asbestos in the
building and had approved the licensed demolition contractor, D&R
Construction, of East Chicago and the Harbor Group, an
environmental consultant, also from East Chicago.

"We informed them it wasn't being properly taken care of,"
Goldblatt said.

Earlier, Kenney said Industrial Insulation Services Inc., of
Hammond, removed asbestos from other parts of the building and
IDEM gave the project the green light to proceed.

Meanwhile, D&R started demolishing the building from the rear or
west side in the alley.

"As he got to the front of building, he noticed there was some
material that fell off the facade of the building that appeared to
be asbestos. He stopped the work," Kenney said.

Dragan Vjestica, of Harbor Group, determined the material was
transite-laden asbestos, Kenney said.

Kenney said he contacted Industrial Insulation, which returned and
cordoned off the area. Kenney said workers have to remove bricks
by hand to gain access to the asbestos material, which will be
bagged and removed.  He said IDEM has approved the action plan for
the removal and the state will inspect it again when workers are
done.

"We've taken every precaution to have a consultant who knows the
process and a contractor who knows what needs to be done," Kenney
said. "Nowacki has taken a special interest in coming by, almost
every day. Because of the high profile nature of the project, I
understand it goes under the microscope."

Gateway Partners LLC, of Hobart, is renovating the 10-story,
century-old bank building with $2.8 million in city-issued revenue
bonds. The city approved the project in April.  Kenney, managing
partner of Gateway Partners, has said the bond money will be used
to renovate the lobby and build a drive-up window and parking for
Centier, which is leasing the lobby.

The revenue bonds come from a downtown tax increment financing
district. Tax money collected in the TIF district stays in the
district to bolster improvements.  Some critics, including
Nowacki, complained Gateway Partners was not investing any of its
money in the project.

Gateway Partners bought the iconic bank in February from EFN Gary
Property LLC, headed by Edward Napleton, a local auto dealer who
had owned it since 1999.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Louis Becoming Destination for Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that two asbestos attorneys discussed at a conference how St.
Louis, Missouri, has grown in recent years as a more attractive
asbestos jurisdiction.

During the HarrisMartin Midwest Asbestos Conference in St. Louis,
asbestos attorneys Lindsay Dibler and Melissa Crowe Schopfer
discussed how the city is growing as an asbestos personal injury
jurisdiction.

The cases have nearly quadrupled in the last four years, with just
67 new asbestos cases filed in 2010 and 256 filed so far this
year, said Dibler, a defense attorney with the Kurowski Shultz law
firm, and Schopfer, a plaintiffs attorney with the Simmons Hanly
Conroy law firm.  In fact, there have been three asbestos cases
that have gone to verdict already this year. Juries entered
multimillion-dollar verdicts in favor of the claimants in two of
the cases and a defense verdict in the last case.

In the first case, Allan Whipple v. John Crane, Inc., the case was
tried under Texas law and the jury awarded the claimant $7.25
million. However, John Crane was dismissed on Jan. 8 after only
six percent of fault was attributed to the defendant.

In the second case, Lawrence Foreman v. Sid Harvey Industries,
Inc./Nibco, Inc., the jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $6
million on Feb. 10. Sid Harvey was tried under Maryland law and
was found liable for $4 million. Nibco was tried under Missouri
law and was found liable for $2 million.

In the third case, Louis Dean Nichols v. Dow Chemical Co./BASF
Corp., the case was tried under Texas law, and the jury ruled in
favor of the defendants on March 11.

Dibler and Schopfer said that as the St. Louis asbestos docket
sees higher verdicts, foreign law can play a key role in these
cases.

Because foreign law can make or break a case, Schopfer said it's
worth asking for a specific state's law to apply.

"If you don't ask for it, the judge won't allow it," she said.

However, Schopfer stressed that when requesting choice of law, a
plaintiffs attorney must address why it will make a difference
when a different law is applied.

Dibler added that waivers are also considered in choice of law
decisions, as co-defendants may choose to opt out of applying a
specific state's law.

"You can't force another defendant to be tried under another
state's law if they don't want to be tried under another state's
law," Dibler said. "They can waive that."

Additionally, Dibler explained that St. Louis is seeing more
filing recently because "it seems to give an out-of-state
plaintiff sort of a better choice of venue than a Missouri
resident."

This is because Missouri residents have the venue determined based
on their initial asbestos exposure. However, if the first exposure
occurs outside of the state, a claimant may choose any county in
Missouri that applies to the defendant.

"A plaintiff is considered first injured where the trauma or
exposure occurred rather than where symptoms are first
manifested," Dibler and Schopfer wrote in their presentation.

Dibler also said the state's statute of limitations law is a
contributing factor in making St. Louis a favorable docket.

According to Missouri law, product liability actions have a
statute of limitations of five years and wrongful death actions
have a statute of limitations of three years.

On the other hand, in Illinois for example, the statute of
limitations for asbestos cases in general is two years from when
the claimant knew or should have known of the asbestos-related
disease.

Because most claimants aren't local, Dibler reminded plaintiffs
attorneys that if they are going to claim statute of limitations
as an issue, they must make sure to indicate that it applies.

The two concluded by comparing St. Louis' growing asbestos docket
to its popular neighboring asbestos docket in Madison County, Ill.
They agreed the St. Louis City court is stricter.

In fact, the city typically follows protocol and schedules by the
book in regards to motion practice, deposition procedures and
scheduling orders, among others.

St Louis also has a different approach to assigning judges for
trial than the Madison County jurisdiction.

In Madison County's clogged asbestos docket, Circuit Judge Stephen
Stobbs presides over all asbestos cases from start to finish. St.
Louis, on the other hand, doesn't assign a judge until just before
trial. In the meantime, motion judges take care of pre-trial
litigation, which helps make the docket more attractive, they
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Critical of Summary Judgment Arguments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Missouri federal judge has ruled that no case law and only
one paragraph supporting a defendant's argument for summary
judgment is not sufficient to win summary judgment in an asbestos
lawsuit.

Judge Greg Kays filed the order denying the motion for summary
judgment on Sept. 12 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri.

Plaintiffs John and Beth New filed a four-count asbestos suit in
Jackson County, Mo., state court, before defendant Ford Motor
Company removed the case to district court alleging diversity
jurisdiction.  They allege John developed lung cancer after being
exposed to asbestos while working at various automobile parts and
repair shops throughout Kansas and Missouri.

Defendant Hennessy Industries requested summary judgment under
Missouri law in November.

Subsequently, defendant Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust also moved for summary judgment under Kansas law. The News
failed to respond to Federal-Mogul's arguments.

Although both defendants requested summary judgment, Kays only
addressed Hennessy's motion in his order, denying the request for
now.

Because each defendant argued for the application of two separate
laws, the court requested supplemental briefing.

However, Kays held that the parties' supplemental briefing lacked
sufficient legal authority and arguments for the court to
effectively decide Hennessy's motion for summary judgment.  He
added that he cannot determine whether a conflict exists between
Missouri and Kansas law on the various liability issues raised in
Hennessy's motions, and "if a conflict does exist, how Missouri
courts would apply its choice-of-law principles to determine what
state has the most significant relationship to this asbestos-
related personal injury suit."

Kays explained that the parties only make general citations to
overarching principles from Missouri case law without providing
any discussion or citation of other cases to support their
positions.

In fact, neither party provided more than a paragraph discussion
supporting their opposing positions in regards to the issue of
whether a conflict exists.

Furthermore, when addressing the significant relationship
analysis, the parties merely cite the restatement factors without
providing any case law or comments on how the factors apply to
this case.

"These issues are somewhat complex and nuanced, thus requiring
more in-depth legal analysis," Kays said.

In addition to Hennessy's arguments in the supplemental brief, the
defendant expanded its summary judgment argument by also claiming
summary judgment is proper under Kansas law.

Kays stated that it was inappropriate to raise this argument for
the first time in the supplemental brief, because it denied
plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to the new argument.  Kays
wrote that because there are numerous other defendants involved in
the suit that could be impacted by the court's choice-of-law
analysis, it is hesitant to just apply Missouri law, assuming it
is constitutionally permissible.

"Given the importance of this decision, the court requires more
thorough and legally supported discussion form Hennessy and
plaintiffs before ruling upon the merits of Hennessy's motion,"
Kays wrote.

He added that when the parties thoroughly develop their arguments
for summary judgment, they should cite cases relying upon
authority from courts interpreting Missouri law as well as
"persuasive, on-point" authority from other jurisdictions.

Because of what he called insufficient arguments, Kays concluded
that "the best course of action" is to deny the summary judgment
request and allow Hennessy to refile its supplemental brief.

"This will afford the parties sufficient time to more thoroughly
research and analyze the potential choice-of-law issue, while also
providing plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to arguments
advanced in Hennessy's most recent filing," he wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Clears Way for Use of Fire Hall
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Townsman reported that the old fire hall in the city of
Cranbook, in British Columbia, Canada, has been cleared of
asbestos and is ready for a tenant to take it over.

"The asbestos at the fire hall has been dealt with," CAO Wayne
Staudt said at the Sept. 15 council meeting. "So we have got a
report from the consultant firm that oversaw the work."

Staudt said that meant the building is now ready for any kind of
construction work or a tenant.

While a Memorandum of Understand has been signed between the City
of Cranbrook and the Cranbrook and District Arts Council, CAO
Wayne Staudt confirmed that there are still "no definite plans for
any group to move into the old fire hall at this time."

At the end of August the city received a project closure report
from Peak Environment Ltd, the professional consultant hired to
oversee the project including the monitoring and inspecting
services.

Peak Environment Ltd has certified that the building can be
reoccupied without concerns regarding possible asbestos exposure.
Napp Enterprises was selected to perform the removal of hazardous
and regulated materials.  The work was performed in accordance
with WorkSafe BC's Occupational Health and Safety Regulations
regarding asbestos and other hazardous materials.

The project is reported to be coming in under budget, with the
project expected to come in at $110,000. The initial budget was
$130,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Violations Released Fibro Into Apartment
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Denver reported that Steve and Kim Weiner in Denver, Colorado,
are so afraid of the health conditions in their apartment they
won't even let family help them move out.

"They want to come in and help pack. And I don't want anybody to
help us pack," Kim Weiner said.

They're moving because asbestos particles and fibers went airborne
recently when construction workers removed paneling on windows at
various points in the building.

"As they pulled that fiberboard off, they damaged that material
and potentially released asbestos fibers," Bill Benerman of the
Denver Department of Environmental Health said.

Dangerous levels of asbestos, which can cause cancer, were found
at several points in the building. Health officials said
contamination is limited to just a few units, but many residents
have said the managers' handling of the situation has been enough
for them to leave.

The building, located at 330 Acoma St. in the Baker neighborhood,
is owned by Maxx Properties. The company did not return CBS4's
calls for comment. It's unclear if the company or its contractor
is to blame.

Witnesses say construction workers were not wearing protective
gear. The Denver Health Department issued a cease and desist order
on the construction after review indicated dozens of violations
where corners were cut.

One of the biggest violations happened when regulators were never
approached about permits to remove asbestos.

An investigation is underway to determine fault. Health officials
are investigating what fines may apply.

A dumpster containing the asbestos near the building has been
sealed.

The Weiners said they plan to sue for negligence.

"Asbestos, I know, affects people years down the road," Kim Weiner
said. "We may not be around, but there are a lot of children that
live in this building. There's young adults in this building."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Compensation Crisis Facing Town Halls
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Thompson, writing for Manchester Evening, reported that town
hall bosses throughout Greater Manchester, England, are facing a
'ticking timebomb' of mounting claims from people struck down with
conditions linked to deadly asbestos.

Manchester council paid out almost GBP600,000 in damages to
victims in the last year alone, an M.E.N. investigation has found.

The 2013/14 claims had to be settled using taxpayers' money,
rather than through insurance as the cases predated the 1980s when
the council did not have asbestos cover.  Figures obtained under
Freedom of Information requests reveal victims of asbestos-related
diseases have won a total of GBP1.8m in damages from councils in
Greater Manchester in recent years.

Campaigners believe payments are likely to soar over the coming
decade as more people fall ill and die after being exposed to the
material.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Faults EPA on Failed Fibro Tests
----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Cama, writing for The Hill, reported that the
Environmental Protection Agency's internal watchdog criticized it
for mismanaging tests on methods for demolishing buildings with
asbestos.

The EPA conducted research between 1999 and 2011 on alternatives
to the federally regulated process for demolishing the buildings
and allowed some tests in Fort Worth, Texas, from 2006 to 2007.

The Office of Inspector General found in a report that the EPA
spent $3.5 million on the program, only to conclude that it did
not work as well as the traditional methods.  The watchdog
concluded that EPA officials "did not conduct the research under a
controlled and defined agency process that would have ensured
consensus and oversight," disregarded guidance and allowed
violations of environmental laws.  It also failed to provide good
data and results from the testing and put the public at potential
risk of exposure to asbestos, which is considered toxic if
inhaled.

Investigators did not find any documented health problems that
resulted.  The inspector general said the EPA should learn from
the experience and require better oversight of research processes
and costs.

In a statement, the EPA said it concurred with the report.

"EPA has made significant changes to its research planning process
to require that all research includes oversight procedures and
input from senior managers," EPA spokeswoman Laura Allen said in a
statement.

"In response, EPA has also taken numerous steps to ensure the
safety and health of its employees and contractors, including
updating its health and safety procedures and training for
research staff," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VA Director Responds to Fibro Investigation
------------------------------------------------------------
WLOS.com reported that four months ago, workers at Charles George
Veteran Affairs Medical Center, in North Carolina, came to News 13
out of concern for their safety. The medical center's director
agreed to speak with investigative reporter Mike Mason about what
he uncovered.

OSHA investigated how VA officials handled asbestos issues at the
hospital and whether workers were being exposed. Just moments ago,
we learned OSHA has launched a second investigation into we
uncovered, this time they're taking a close look at an asbestos
contractor who worked at the VA.

The Charles George VA Medical Center's Director says she wants to
set the record straight, "I would like to reassure the public, the
staff and all of our veterans that this hospital is safe."

A News 13 investigation found damaged asbestos throughout the VA's
sub-basement and workers say it has been there for decades. An
OSHA complaint filed in January of last year alleged: "Workers
were exposed to asbestos."

In a letter sent to OSHA, VA director Cynthia Breyfogle responded
to those allegations; writing; 'all debris was removed by May of
2013'. Breyfogle also tells us, "Since January of 2010 we've done
one thousand and nine separate tests on the air and they've all
come back clear."

We asked Breyfogle about that OSHA complaint and why she reported
there was "no asbestos debris" in the sub-basement when the VA
inspected it.

News 13 found just six months afterwards, a private contractor
discovered damaged asbestos in many areas and highlighted them on
a map.

Breyfogle responded, "My assumption would be that it was not
damaged at the time of inspection, as Mr. Cornell explained; water
damage, leaks would cause asbestos. So that's why we do it every
six months."

Robert Cornell is the VA's Chief of Facilities and admits, "We
still have asbestos in our medical center." Cornell says none of
that asbestos is considered 'friable' or easily made airborne.

This past June, the VA found more asbestos in the sub-basement
including damaged piping which created piles of debris around two
air handlers.

Cornell says that potential hazard was cleared, "Those air samples
came back negative as well." News 13's investigative reporter Mike
Mason then questioned Cornell whether it's effective to conduct
air testing when the dust has already settled, "That's when the
debris is just sitting there. It would have to be moved or shifted
around, stirred up. I think that's part of the concern."

Cornell replied, "But that's kind of why we restrict the access
if, and when, we do find something like that. To prevent anyone
from stirring anything up." Mason pressed Cornell saying, "Okay,
but when this debris is falling from the pipes on to the ground
it's becoming airborne. It's disturbed." Cornell replied,
"Potentially, yeah." Cornell tells us he simply informs workers
not to touch asbestos. One current VA worker says that's not so
easy, showing us a photo he took this past June of crumbling pipes
in the sub-basement. We showed that photo to Cornell and asked,
"Is this acceptable?" Cornell admitted, "No, we would come along
and clean that up as well."

Breyfogle says she depends on her employees and wants them to know
their health along with their jobs are both safe at the VA, "If
you see anything about to harm a patient, harm yourself or your
co-workers; part of your job is to speak up."

VA officials tell News 13 they're applying for federal funding to
remove all remaining asbestos in the main building's sub-basement.
News 13 requested OSHA's full report regarding their latest air
tests at the Asheville VA. They say some of that info will have to
wait until their new investigation is complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: VFW Building Contains Toxic Dust
-------------------------------------------------
Elise Kaplan, writing for Mountain View Telegraph, reported that
the upset over the hasty demolition of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars building in Mountainair, New Mexico, turned out to be well-
founded as lab results returned in late July found "10 of 36
samples contained more than 1 percent asbestos (28 percent of the
samples)."

The upset over the hasty demolition of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars building in Mountainair turned out to be well-founded as lab
results returned in late July found "10 of 36 samples contained
more than 1 percent asbestos (28 percent of the samples)."

The contaminated materials included the floor tile, floor tile
mastic, gray roofing tar, and the black mastic on the plaster and
concrete. Mountainair resident Dan Embree alerted the Air Quality
Control Board of the New Mexico Environmental Department on July
21 when he witnessed the demolition of the building and had doubts
about whether the town had tested the materials for asbestos.  He
informed the Telegraph of the town's missteps after he received
hundreds of pages of documents from an inspection of public
records request asking for all documents pertaining to the matter.

The saga started in early July when Romero's Heating and Cooling
quoted the town a price of $9,907 for the demolition of the
building -- including removal of the structure's roof, use of
mechanical equipment to knock down the structure, removing and
disposing of all construction debris, leveling the land, and
filling the existing basement with adobe. Embree said as far as he
can tell the basement has not been properly filled in.

Romero began the demolition on July 19 but halted the job after a
confrontation with Embree. Embree said according to Town Clerk
Suzan Brazil Pablo Romero has not yet been paid for work he
undertook. Romero did not return a call for comment.

The NMED requires a property owner to file a National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants notification alerting the
department of their plans 10 days in advance of the demolition of
a nonresidential building. A NESHAPS requires prior testing for
asbestos, done by the property owner -- in this case the town of
Mountainair.

Following an inspection by an environmental specialist with NMED,
the town received a complaint finding a "failure to thoroughly
inspect the VFW Hall building prior to demolition" and "failure to
provide to NMED a notice of intent to demolish the former VFW
building."

The NMED is still finalizing the investigation report, said Jim
Winchester, the department's communications director, and the case
will be referred to the Air Quality Bureau's Enforcement Section
to determine enforcement action and any monetary penalties. At
this time no enforcement action has been initiated, he added.
On Sept. 9, the town paid Keers Environmental $34,890 for the
removal of asbestos materials. This figure is about three-and-a-
half times the amount they were going to pay Romero's for the
debris removal.

"In the end it hasn't cost them anything other than what it would
have cost them in the beginning if they'd just done it properly,"
Embree said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UO Moves to Correct Fibro Floor Tile Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Around the O reported that a contractor for the University of
Oregon will begin sealing floors in 59 faculty and staff offices
in two campus buildings as part of a project that will prevent the
release of asbestos fibers from worn floor tiles.

The work follows inspections by state officials that turned up
evidence of worn sealant on asbestos-containing floor tiles in the
offices. Environmental testing has turned up no evidence of
unhealthy conditions in the offices or buildings, and the amount
of asbestos in the tiles is extremely low, less than 5 percent.
But the sealant will ensure that no asbestos fibers are released
or exposed due to wear and tear on the floors. The work is being
conducted by a company that specializes in asbestos abatement.

The offices are located in Prince Lucien Campbell and Lawrence
halls. After this initial phase of work, another 102 offices in
nine other buildings, where the problem is less urgent, also will
receive additional sealant.

The UO Department of Environmental Health and Safety was aware of
the wear and was in the process of putting protective measures in
place when the Oregon Occupational Health and Safety
Administration received a complaint from a university employee
about the floors. The state conducted tests and found no evidence
of unhealthy conditions in the buildings, confirming tests done
earlier by the university.

But even though the state did not find evidence of unhealthy
conditions, citations may be issued over possible shortcomings in
the floor maintenance program. It's possible that the state will
issue up to four citations -- two each for PLC and Lawrence halls
-- that carry fines of $1,600 each.

But the university isn't waiting to hear if it will be cited
before addressing the concerns.

Doug Brooke, associate director of environmental health and safety
at the UO, stressed that testing has shown no one is in danger
from the floor tiles, which are common in many older commercial
and residential buildings. As soon as the university learned of
the issue, it began doing air monitoring that showed that if any
asbestos has been released it is well below the allowed exposure
level.

The air monitors detect any fibers in room air, but they don't
distinguish between fibers from asbestos and those from paper,
fabric or other sources. But Brooke said that even if all the
fibers detected were from asbestos -- a highly unlikely result --
the amount still would be well below allowable limits.

The wear is generally caused by chairs rolling over the floor
tiles. The floors all had been waxed or otherwise sealed at one
point, but office floors were only rewaxed upon request and some
have lost most of their protective coating, Brooke said.

Asbestos is only hazardous when it is broken up or becomes
friable, which means it has become crumbly or brittle. Solid tiles
pose little threat, Brooke said, but they must be sealed with wax
or other coatings to ensure they don't shed fibers.

The damage on office floors is limited to areas around chairs and
other furniture, and the new sealant will be applied to those
areas. Ultimately, it will be up to building managers or
department heads to decide whether at some point to cover the
tiles with carpet or replace them as a longer-term solution.

In a smaller number of offices, about 15, small area rugs will
have to removed and disposed of. The rugs concealed but did not
prevent wear to the floors.

Due to their location, the rugs may contain small amounts of
asbestos fibers, which UO health and safety officials said are not
harmful because they are not easily released from the rug.
However, since removing asbestos fibers from the rugs cannot be
guaranteed, the rugs will be thrown away out of an abundance of
caution.

Before that happens, the university will work with the owners to
replace the rug or compensate them for the loss. The rugs will be
disposed of according to state laws on asbestos abatement.

Mike Eldredge, the UO's asbestos program manager, became aware of
a potential problem in 2012 and addressed that with additional
sealant on affected floors. That was only a temporary fix, and in
fall 2013 Eldredge presented mitigation options to Gwynn Daniels,
the UO's director of environmental health and safety, advising
that further work was needed. Funding for the work was approved in
2014.

A plan to fix the floors was under way when the complaint was
received in May and the state began its investigation, which took
about three months. That included air sampling, which showed any
asbestos release was far below allowable limits.

The environmental health and safety office is now working with
campus operations to develop an improved floor maintenance plan.

Asbestos abatement is a continuing project for the university,
which spent more than $1 million on such work in the year prior to
receiving the current complaint. The UO spent another $350,000 on
abatement as part of the Earl Hall renovation project.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Longwood University
--------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Walker, writing for The Rotunda, reported that the
demolition of the Cunninghams in Longwood University, in Virgnia,
has brought about many questions around campus, one being the
asbestos insulation which is potentially hazardous. Asbestos is a
natural mineral that was used quite frequently before more
advanced forms of insulation became popular.

Many people on campus worry about the danger of asbestos, but it
is not as dangerous if it remains contained.

"Asbestos is inert as long as it is not disturbed," said Longwood
Emergency Response Team Captain, Corey Davis. "It basically
becomes an aerosol, but as long as you're not dispersing the
particles into the air, it can't get into your lungs and it's not
going to hurt you."

According to Davis, asbestos has no smell to it, but the particles
get into your lungs and scar up the tissue if inhaled over a long
period of time. "It is a fire resistant material that was used in
fire fighter gear, gloves and other fire resistant objects up
until the 70s," he added. "This shows that it has a more recent
history than people may think."

"There is no reason to worry about it, there is no impeding
danger," said Davis. "If they were to take a sledge hammer to the
wall that would disturb the particles, but as long as they are not
standing there continuously breathing it in, it's not going to
hurt them."

"It wouldn't be detrimental if a building were to catch on fire,"
he added. "The fire fighters would have to take extra precautions
but the bystanders who are a decent way from the building would
not be in harms way."

This is new information to most people because it is not visible,
but asbestos insulation has been in buildings such as the
Cunninghams and Tabb, the Athletics Building, for many years.

"It isn't where people can touch it, there is an appropriate
guideline being followed," said Capital Design & Construction,
Project Manager, Kimberly Bass. "Also, every building on campus
with asbestos is kept thoroughly on record in case of emergency."

According to capital planning, it is difficult to get the asbestos
out of the buildings on campus because it is closed in behind hard
surfaces, such as plaster ceilings. This is why they don't take it
out until it is time to do major renovations or demolition.

Before moving forward with the demolition of the Cunninghams,
proper abatement of the asbestos must occur.

"Abatement is not a 100 percent affective process, there is a
chance some particles will be released into the air but again that
low of a quantity will not be harmful," said Davis.

"It is important[that] people know the asbestos is not going to a
landfill with demolition materials, it will go to a separate
location to be buried," says Bass.

According to Davis the replacement insulation will typically be a
form of fiberglass insulation just like the kind found in your own
house. "It is not as fire resistant, it can melt but it won't
catch flame," he added.

This process will take time but the extra precautions are
necessary to ensure student safety.

"Project abatement is set for Sept. 29, 2014, this starts the
entire process," said Capital Planning Trades Manager, Melvin
Moore.  "Demolition is set for completion on Dec. 31, 2014."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Welding Program Homeless During Fibro Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ilene Olson, writing for Powell Tribune, reported that hands-on
instruction for welding students at Northwest College, in Wyoming,
has been delayed, pending the results of air-quality testing in
the Oliver Building, which houses the welding program.

Follow-up testing was ordered after traces of asbestos fibers were
found on surfaces in the facility.

NWC President Stefani Hicswa said a roof replacement project on
the building (the third of three roofing projects on campus)
wasn't completed before the beginning of the school year.

While that work was underway, the college moved instruction-only
welding classes to other rooms on campus, and delayed hands-on
welding labs pending a return to the Oliver Building, which has
been temporarily closed.

Because pounding during the roofing project caused a lot of dust
to fall, "we contracted with Northern Industrial Hygiene Inc. to
conduct air sampling tests and sampling of the particulate on
horizontal surfaces in the facility," Hicswa wrote in a campus-
wide email.

"We were being proactive to see if there were any health concerns
as a result of all that dust," she said.

The air sample results showed no hazardous materials in the air,
but traces of asbestos were found in samples from horizontal
surfaces, Hicswa said.

"Therefore, we requested that Northern Industrial Hygiene conduct
additional testing," she wrote in the email.

Hicswa said she expects results soon, and those results will
determine the college's next steps.  She said she hopes the new
testing shows the problem was temporary, allowing the welding
program to return to the Oliver Building.

"Best-case scenario, the tests will come back with low levels,"
she said.

If asbestos problems persist, other solutions will have to be
found.

"Will a temporary facility be needed? I hope not," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Work Needed in Litigating Fibro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that since asbestos cases have found their
way back into federal courts across the nation, attorneys from
both sides of the asbestos litigation field have agreed that
litigating in district courts is nothing to be afraid of.

As part of the HarrisMartin Midwest Asbestos Conference in St.
Louis, U.S. District Judge Stephen C. Williams was joined by
asbestos attorneys Allyson Romani and Anita Kidd to discuss the
growing number of asbestos cases being removed to federal court,
specifically the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

Romani explained that when plaintiffs attorneys first get asbestos
cases removed to federal court, panic sets in. Or, as Kidd put it,
litigating before a federal judge can be "nerve-racking" compared
to state court.

However, the two addressed those fears, saying the extra work and
strict guidelines can actually be beneficial.

"Federal court is not a place to be scared of," she said.

Because litigating asbestos cases in federal court is
significantly different than litigating in state court, the group
addressed factors that must be considered when a case is removed
to district court.

The most noticeable difference between federal court and state
court is the extra work and stricter schedules in federal court.

Romani, a plaintiff attorney with Shrader & Associates, explained
that while plaintiffs attorneys are used to the expedited cases in
state court, specifically Madison County, Ill., there is "much
more" work needed in federal court.  She advised attorneys to
communicate before getting involved in court and to be "overly
inclusive."

Kidd agreed, explaining that federal cases have to be "worked up."

"Don't wait until just before trial to get your ducks in a row.
You need to get your ducks in a row as the case progresses," said
Kidd, a defense attorney with the Armstrong Teasdale law firm.

In fact, Romani suggested decreasing the number of defendants
named in an asbestos suit as soon as the case is removed, because
parties "do not want to be litigating these cases with 90
defendants. If someone doesn't need to be there, get rid of them."

Williams also stressed the federal court's push for settlements in
asbestos cases when a lengthy and costly trial can be avoided.

"We obviously can't try every case," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Hikes Prices to Demolish Downtown Icon
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vindy.com reported that additional asbestos found inside boilers
at the former Wean United complex, in Youngstown, Ohio, caused a
25-percent increase in a contract the city has with a company to
remove the hazardous material and clean contaminated soil at the
downtown location.

The board of control approved the $72,450 change-order increase to
the original $288,159 proposal from Environmental Management
Specialists, the Cleveland company doing the work. That brought
the project's total cost to $360,639.

Asbestos-filled fireproofing materials found inside boilers at the
facility's former boiler house caused the increase, said Charles
Shasho, deputy director of the city's public works department.

"It's a little more pricey because of the increased labor involved
in the removal," he said. "It became a more time-consuming job."

That work is ongoing, Shasho said.

Also, the city still has to seek proposals from companies to
remove the concrete slabs of the 300,000-square-feet of buildings
that used to house Wean United. The estimated cost of that work
hasn't been determined, but it will be more than the asbestos
remediation and soil cleaning, Shasho said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Schools Suspend Fibro Removal Effort
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reported that school officials in Huntington
Beach, California, have halted an asbestos abatement project after
hearing complaints from parents and a vocal school board member.
KNX 1070's Mike Landa reports the modernization program at 11
schools in the Ocean View School District (OVSD) includes a
district-wide effort to remove asbestos from the campuses.

School board member John Briscoe filed an official complaint with
CAL/OSHA for possible asbestos handling violations citing what he
calls evidence of ceiling tiles being "disturbed, moved, removed
and even missing" during the modernization effort, which includes
restroom renovations, fire alarm upgrades, and roofing work.

According to the school district's website, OVSD began the multi-
million-dollar project in July on all of its campuses: Circle
View, College View, Golden View, Hope View, Lake View, Mesa View,
Oak View, Spring View, Star View, Sun View, and Vista View.
A notice posted on the OVSD website states the following: "As of
September 17, 2014 Asbestos Abatement has been put on hold at ALL
sites until further notice."

The notice also states the district has inspected each campus
"regularly as required to be sure that the remaining [asbestos
containing materials] is not disturbed."

Briscoe said he's outraged because a project that was supposed to
be completed in the summer before kids were in class is continuing
into late September.

"Our district administration and the contractor decided to do
asbestos abatement in the middle of the day, with kids walking
around and parents walking around," he said. "Supposedly all safe,
but still it's certainly tone-deaf and insensitive in my opinion."
The issue is expected to be discussed at the next school board
meeting on Oct. 7.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Contributed to Newquay Man's Death
---------------------------------------------------------
Cornish Guardian reported that a man from Newquay, in England,
died from a combination of natural causes and industrial disease
related to asbestos exposure, an inquest heard.

Norman Andrew Grimshaw, 65, died at the Royal Cornwall Hospital,
Treliske, on September 4 last year.

An inquest at Truro Coroner's Court heard how Mr Grimshaw studied
carpentry in Manchester, before starting work at George Hill wood
merchants in Oldham, where he worked for around five years.

In a statement from Mr Grimshaw's sister, Susan Shaw, who did not
attend the inquest, she said: "[My brother worked] in a wood
machinery environment, which would have involved cutting wood to
size. He never wore a dust mask or protective clothing. Part of
his duties probably involved cutting asbestos sheets; the by-
products would have been asbestos dust.

The statement continued: "Workers at the merchants used to make
snowballs of it and throw it at each other. When he came home his
clothes were covered in dust."

Mr Grimshaw moved to Newquay at the age of 22, where he worked as
a kitchen porter in various hotels.

A report from his GP Dr Ingall, from Narrowcliffe Surgery in
Newquay, said Mr Grimshaw had been suffering from "a long list of
health problems," including type 2 diabetes, which was exacerbated
by him being overweight. He had suffered a stroke in 2011, and was
later admitted to hospital with acute bronchitis.

Dr Ingall's statement said: "Mr Grimshaw was treated with oxygen,
steroids and antibiotics, and he improved quite well."

But after returning to his home, a bedsit with a downstairs
kitchen, Mr Grimshaw, who was described as being "very disabled,"
became depressed.

The inquest heard how, on the night of August 25, he took an
overdose of 90 codeine tablets, but after waking up in the early
hours of the next day he regretted his actions and dialled 999.

However, assistant coroner for Cornwall, Andrew Cox, ruled out
codeine as a factor of his death after hearing evidence from
pathologist Dr Juliane Stolte.

"He was admitted to hospital on August 21 and died in September so
there was a long time in-between. If he had died from codeine
toxicity it would have been much quicker than that," she said.

During the post-mortem, Dr Stolte found that both of Mr Grimshaw's
lungs showed severe fibrosis - an asbestos related disease -- as
well as generalised cardiovascular disease.

"I was convinced there were sufficient asbestos bodies to satisfy
that asbestos had an effect on the severe pulmonary fibrosis," she
said.

But Dr Ian Coutts, a consultant respiratory physician, said he did
not believe that asbestos exposure had caused Mr Grishaw's death.

He said: "I saw this man in life. He did some, but not a lot of
work in the building trade. He described himself as a chef, though
he did work in the timber trade with Asbestolux, which is an
asbestos cement product. That stuff gets sawn and drilled on and
releases asbestos. He'd have been exposed during that work, but to
get pulmonary fibrosis is unlikely from this tiny bit of exposure
he had.

"This man's exposure was not of the order one would expect to
develop pulmonary fibrosis. I don't know what caused it but I
personally believe that it was not asbestos," he added.

Assistant coroner for Cornwall, Andrew Cox, said: "The cause of Mr
Grimshaw's death was respiratory failure due to idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis, but I can't ignore the findings of Dr Stolte
in the post-mortem which showed there was asbestos exposure.

"Mr Grimshaw has died as a result of a combination of natural
causes and industrial disease," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Stonington Woman Survives Fibro Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------
Judy Benson, writing for The Day, reported that for most of her
life, Lisa Rolfe, of Stonington, Connecticut, had never been
enticed by the notion of getting a tattoo, nor had her husband,
Brian, or their daughters Lindsay and Margaret.

But one day last April, all four of them entered a Groton tattoo
parlor to have matching messages inked onto their bodies: "Run to
the roar," to commemorate their common triumph. Wearing a
sleeveless shirt so she could easily show the stripe of words
across her inner upper arm, Rolfe said that the phrase, introduced
to her by a health care worker, encapsulates the incredible series
of events that began two years ago, and helped her and her family
face their fears and get through the most difficult parts. Her
daughters, now 17 and 22, had the message printed on T-shirts they
sold at school to raise money for cancer research and, in the
process, help themselves cope with what their mother was enduring.

"I'll be 17 months cancer free, and I'll be starting to volunteer
at Dana-Farber in Waterford in October," said Rolfe, 48, referring
to Lawrence + Memorial Hospital's Cancer Center, an affiliate of
the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. "You don't go through
something like this and come out as the same person. I don't have
a lot of stamina, and there won't be any more running, but my
family and I celebrate every day."

Her odyssey conquering one of the most difficult forms of cancer,
mesothelioma, is still bringing her new experiences. She and
Lindsay will be in Philadelphia to mark as Mesothelioma Awareness
Day by attending the Regional Conference on Mesothelioma, perhaps
showing their tattoos and sharing their family's inspirational
story with others touched by the disease.

In Connecticut, the mesothelioma rate was 2.26 cases per 100,000
residents from 2007 to 2011, according to the state Department of
Public Health. Caused when asbestos fibers become airborne, are
inhaled and get imbedded in the lungs, this relatively rare cancer
is more prevalent in southeastern Connecticut than other parts of
the state because of workers exposed at some the region's
industries that used asbestos, an effective flame retardant.

"People still don't take asbestos seriously," said Rolfe, whose
father worked with asbestos gloves and asbestos-lined ovens as
part of his job as a chemist. "They'll just rip it out of old
buildings and put it in garbage bags, but it's not safe to breathe
it or touch it. A one-time exposure is enough."

While training to run a marathon two years ago, Rolfe started
experiencing shortness of breath, a persistent cough and back pain
on her left side. Doctors first thought she had a bad case of
bronchitis, but when antibiotics didn't cure her, she knew the
diagnosis was wrong. A chest X-ray revealed three large tumors
outside of her left lung.

"I was an athlete, a runner," Rolfe said. "We never expected what
was about to hit us."

Immediately after learning about the tumors, Rolfe sought out
specialty care with pulmonologists in Boston, who diagnosed her
with mesothelioma. The typical patient, she noted, is a 70-year-
old man who worked with the fibers for decades before retiring.
But second-hand exposure to asbestos, she learned, can also cause
the illness in wives and other family members.

"It was my job as a kid to do the laundry," Rolfe recalled. "My
father was bringing it home on his clothes. They call us
'daughters of the dust.'"

In a Boston hospital, surgeons removed two of her ribs and the
pleura - a membrane that surrounds the lungs - to remove the
tumors. They then injected a chemotherapy bath into her entire
chest cavity to kill any cancer cells.

She remained in the thoracic intensive care unit for eight days,
then stayed in an apartment near the hospital for several weeks
during her recovery and follow-up treatments.

"It's an aggressive, aggressive surgery, and some people don't
even make it," Rolfe said. "I only weighed 92 pounds when it was
done, and then I had to build myself back up."

Her healing, she said, has been helped along by the outpouring of
cards, gifts and messages of concern from the community, along
with acupuncture and healing touch treatments. A basket on a table
in the entrance to her home is filled with dozens of get-well
cards, a collection she treasures and has reread many times.
"You'd be surprised what you can conquer when you get a little
braver," she said. "My message to people who have cancer is to
never give up. Cancer is big, but it can be beaten."

Rolfe has also become well versed in the story of asbestos, its
widespread use in wrapping for pipes, tiles, siding on homes and
other products, and the court-ordered funds set up by the now-
bankrupt manufacturers. Too many people have become complacent
about the danger of asbestos still lurking in basements and
utility rooms, she said, recounting how a friend's son had a
summer job cleaning schools and was told to enter a building
without protective gear.

"There's no safe level of exposure," she said. "The only thing I
did was take a breath one day."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Leads to Abingdon Man's Death
---------------------------------------------------------
The Oxford Times reported that a man who worked in Abingdon's MG
factory, in England, died because of asbestos he inhaled during
his employment, his inquest found.

Kenneth Kerby, 68, died at his home in Bath Street, Abingdon, on
July 19.  His inquest, at Oxfordshire Coroner's Court, heard he
left school at 16 and in 1961 started working at the MG factory as
a mechanic.

In a statement Mr Kerby prepared with his lawyer before his death,
he said he was exposed to asbestos dust from brake linings. He
left the factory in 1964 and spent 30 years as a self-employed
decorator.

Mr Kerby's GP, Dr Katharina Winkel, said he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma -- a type of cancer that can develop in the tissues
covering the lungs or the abdomen -- in January 2013 after
experiencing shortness of breath.

Assistant coroner Nicholas Graham said: "In this case I will draw
a conclusion of industrial disease. He was exposed to asbestos
during his work life and died of mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Lawsuits Booted for Lack of Jurisdiction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Khadijah M. Britton, writing for Law360, reported that a
Pennsylvania federal judge overseeing multidistrict asbestos
litigation brought by merchant marines ended 225 of their suits in
a decision, saying it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant
companies because they had never shipped in Ohio, where the suits
were brought.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno agreed with the companies
that they were improperly joined in the suit outside of their
appropriate jurisdictions, and thus the plaintiffs' claims could
not proceed.

In its one-page order, the court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss without providing new reasoning, instead relying on its
holdings in two previous decisions, August 2013's Bartel, where it
granted 418 motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,
and March's Jacobs, where it granted 5,974 such motions, along
with its own April order.

"We are pleased Judge Robreno extended his personal jurisdiction
finding to similar cases involving similar issues," defendants'
counsel Harold Henderson of Thompson Hine LLP told Law360.

In both of the referenced cases, the court said the seamen failed
to show that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over
the defendants or that they had not timely asserted or had waived
their personal jurisdiction defense.

In Bartel, Judge Robreno said the court did not have personal
jurisdiction over any of the defendants, whose only Ohio contacts,
if any, were unrelated to the plaintiffs' injuries, because Ohio
does not recognize general jurisdiction.

In Jacobs, Judge Robreno held, "Because the plaintiffs' complaints
did not make jurisdictional allegations about any of the shipowner
defendants' specific activities that allegedly caused injury to
the plaintiffs, this court found that there was no personal
jurisdiction over the defendants."

The plaintiffs in Bartel and Jacobs argued that the shipowner
defendants waived their right to raise the defense of lack of
personal jurisdiction through statements they made in the 1980s
and '90s, but the court found the defendants did not waive that
defense because they consistently raised it throughout the
litigation, and did not participate in the litigation of their own
volition.

Before Jacobs, the plaintiffs submitted further evidence they said
proved the waiver, but Judge Robreno said, "the court is not
persuaded that these exhibits show by a preponderance of the
evidence a universal waiver by all defendants, in all cases, in
perpetuity."

About 60,000 cases and 3.5 million asbestos claims were
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania starting in
1991. The list of defendants in the sprawling multidistrict
litigation includes companies as diverse as General Electric Co.,
3M Co., General Motors Corp., DuPont Co. and Sears Roebuck & Co.

The massive MDL, which is the longest-running mass tort in U.S.
history, has frequently ended in settlements and other dismissals
of the individual cases involved.

Plaintiff's counsel John D. Herrick of Motley Rice LLC told Law360
that Judge Robreno told the parties he plans to suggest remand to
the Multidistrict Litigation Panel for about 250 of the seamen's
cases to the Northern District of Ohio through an intercircuit
transfer, which would be the MDL's largest remand ever. Judge
Robreno said he plans to stay involved in the administration of
the case, which he expects will be set for trial in January 2015.

The plaintiffs are represented by John E. Herrick and John D.
Hurst of Motley Rice LLC.

The defendants are represented by Harold W. Henderson, Richard C.
Binzley and Susan K. Dirks of Thompson Hine LLP.

The case is In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No.
VI), case number 2:02-md-00875, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Delays Dracut Old Town Hall Razing
---------------------------------------------------------
John Collins, writing for Lowell Sun, reported that the discovery
of several asbestos "hotspots" under the slate roofing of Old Town
Hall, in Dracut, Massachusetts, has caused the demolition of the
130-year-old building to be indefinitely postponed, Town Clerk
Kathy Graham said.

Old Town Hall, which was constructed in 1883 as a two-room
schoolhouse prior to being expanded, renovated and utilized as the
center of town government for about a century, was scheduled to be
torn down.

But while stripping the building's piping and interior to prepare
it for the destruction, New Hampshire Demolition Co. employees
found asbestos "under the old slate roofing," Graham said.

It may be up to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection or other state officials to determine when the Old
Dracut Town Hall is cleared for demolition, Graham said.

If a building containing asbestos is torn down, the town could
become liable for any materials that end up at a landfill, Graham
noted.

The $9.3 million new Dracut Town Hall, which was erected
immediately in back of the older building at 62 Arlington St.,
opened for business earlier in September.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tex. Ruling Not Gaining Traction in Other Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Texas defense attorney recently said that as asbestos
litigation changes, the laws governing legal causation must also
change -- and the recent Bostic decision from the Texas Supreme
Court is a prime example of that change despite the fact that it
is not having a nationwide impact yet.

Attorney Kenneth Rhodes of the Gray Reed & McGraw law firm was
joined by plaintiff attorney J. Kyle Beale of the Karst & von
Oiste law firm at the HarrisMartin Midwest Asbestos Litigation
Conference in St. Louis on Sept. 18 to discuss the recent Bostic
decision and causation trends. In Bostic, Texas Supreme Court
showed that proving causation would not be taken lightly in the
state's asbestos cases.

According to Bostic, which was decided on July 11, the court
concluded that offering evidence of exposure regarding a dose-
related disease alone should not imply automatic liability for
asbestos claimants. Rather, plaintiffs must satisfy causation
standards for their allegations to survive.

The Bostic court held that the every exposure theory negates the
plaintiff's burden to prove causation by a preponderance of
evidence because it accepts that the failure to find a safe dose
means every exposure causes the illness, even background exposure.

"If any exposure at all were sufficient to cause mesothelioma,
everyone would suffer from it or at least be at risk of
contracting the disease," the court stated.

The Bostic court held that when proving evidence of causation, the
plaintiff's expert testimony of causation must be scientifically
reliable and must include epidemiological studies showing the
product more than doubled the plaintiff's risk of injury.

"An expert's testimony that brings no more than 'his credentials
and a subjective opinion' will not support a judgment," the court
held.

Rhodes and Beale also discussed the Flores decision as it relates
to the Bostic decision. In Flores, Borg Warner and three other
defendants went to jury trial in a brake mechanic's asbestos case,
where a Texas jury ruled in favor of the claimant.

However, the state Supreme Court concluded that the evidence
provided was legally insufficient to establish causation, thus
rejecting the "every exposure" theory.

As a result, the state Supreme Court ruled that substantial factor
is required to establish causation in Texas.

Beale said the "bar was set pretty high" when the court determined
that plaintiffs were required to provide defendant-specific dose,
aggregate dose and respirable fibers sufficient to cause the
disease.

As a result of the Bostic and Flores decisions, Beale warned
plaintiffs attorneys present at the conference to get their cases
"tied" before taking them to trial if the claimant has any Texas
exposures.

"In Texas," he said, "if you get to verdict -- based on the
landscape now with the court of appeals -- even if you get there,
you may not get to keep it."

Rhodes added that the Court of Appeals has lost its trust in the
jury to get decisions right, because the state Supreme Court has
ruled against the jury's decisions in both the Flores and Bostic
decisions.  The question, Rhodes asked, is whether these decisions
will gain traction in other asbestos jurisdictions across the
country.

It doesn't look like it.  In fact, his response to that question
was, "absolutely not happening."  More specifically, the Flores
decision has been cited in 38 opinions nationwide, 25 of which
were in Texas, he said.

Since its conclusion in July, the Bostic decision has been cited
in four opinions nationwide.

Together with Texas' Stephens decision, the cases have been cited
21 times in foreign jurisdictions, and there doesn't appear to be
a trend as rulings are split down the middle. Texas law was
applied in 11 courts and rejected in 10 courts.

While it appears the Flores and Bostic decisions requiring strict
causation standards will not become the norm anytime soon, Rhodes
noted that courts are still rejecting the "every exposure" theory
as sufficient causation evidence.

Jurisdictions rejecting the Flores decision are instead adopting
the Lohrmann test, which is viewed as a reasonable middle ground
between the Bostic/Flores approach and the "every exposure"
approach. Courts have found that the idea of "anything goes" is
too relaxed and exposure allegations must be held to a higher
standard.

"This is a balancing test," Rhodes said of legal causation. "Every
single case out there is a balancing of the plaintiff's right to
recover and the defendant's liability."

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the Lohrmann ruling in
1986. As a result, plaintiffs were then required to show
frequency, proximity and regularity of exposure.

In other words, a plaintiff must be around the asbestos-containing
product often enough and close enough to get sick.

The Lohrmann standard may have been appropriate before the first
wave of asbestos bankruptcies because the amphibole asbestos
fibers were more potent and involved claimants who had lengthy,
concentrated exposures.

However, the standard is considered weak by Texas courts when
assessing asbestos cases today, because most current exposure
allegations include weaker exposures to less potent chrysotile
asbestos fibers that were encapsulated inside metal products.

Rhodes said the Bostic decision is an example that asbestos
litigation has changed since traditional defendants sought
bankruptcy protection.

"I've been doing this for a long time," he said, "and it is a much
bigger issue than 20 years ago."

Rhodes explained that early in his career, he never once denied
that a defendant's product caused the alleged asbestos-related
injury in court, because the exposures were much more concentrated
and it was clear that the claimant was exposed.

"Product manufacturers did not challenge the ability of their
products to create sufficient quantities of respirable asbestos
fibers to cause mesothelioma," he stated in his presentation.

However, asbestos litigation today has changed dramatically from
the early years, because new claimants' exposures do not have the
intensity or duration of those in the early years, he explained.

"It's an apple and an orange as compared to exposures in the early
years," Rhodes said of alleged asbestos exposures today.

As a result, he added that courts today are "faced with the
difficult task of re-defining legal causation."

Rhodes said that because asbestos litigation is changing, the laws
governing legal causation need to change with it.

Beale also noted that the state Supreme Court did reject the "but
for causation" standard in its Bostic ruling, which requires a
plaintiff must prove that but for exposure to the defendant's
product, the asbestos-related disease would not have manifested.

The Bostic court held that proving "but for causation" can be
humanly impossible, as it is difficult to establish which fibers
from which defendant actually caused the injury.

"This would have done away with asbestos litigation in Texas
altogether, especially in multiple exposure cases," Beale said.
"That would have been a high hurdle to jump."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carmakers, Insurers Want Garlock Docs Unsealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reported that Ford Motor Co.,
Honeywell International, Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and a
slew of insurers urged a North Carolina bankruptcy judge to reject
a bid to seal aggregated estimations of past and pending
mesothelioma claims against Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
saying the information should be released to the public.

The group, known as the Public Access Proponents, slammed a motion
to seal records filed by the Official Committee of Asbestos
Personal Injury Claimants in the Garlock case.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Delays Strip Mall Demolition
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ruzich, writing for The Chicago Tribune, reported the
demolition of a strip mall near 75th Street and Cass Avenue in
Darien, Illinois, has been delayed to allow for asbestos removal
work.

The mall was owned by the City of Darien before being sold to a
private developer for $1.2 million in June. Darien Pointe, LLC
plans to put two new retail buildings on the site.

Demolition of the strip mall had been scheduled for early
September, but was delayed because of asbestos issues, according
to Dan Gombac, director of municipal services.

"They have to make sure all the asbestos is out of there," Gombac
said. "He (the developer) is doing the asbestos report right now.
It's taking a little longer than anticipated." Gombac said the
developer is removing tile, piping and other materials that may
contain asbestos.

While most of the businesses have vacated the strip mall, Jim's
Quality Meats will remain open. Gombac said the developer will
demolish all but the meat market portion of the building and the
business will move into the first new space available. Then the
rest of the current mall will be razed.

"We hate to put any business out of service for any given amount
of time," Gombac said. "We are trying to do everything we can to
help accommodate the business."

An agreement with the city also states that the developer will
contribute $50,000 for a small park site to be located just
southwest of the strip mall. The city will pay an additional
$163,055 to complete construction of the park.

The park site will include a 30-foot triangular clock tower with a
chime set, a water fountain feature, a drinking fountain and
landscaping. It also will have a brick-paved courtyard, ornamental
plants, park benches and natural stone accents.

The city will maintain the park and will not transfer ownership to
the park district. While all aldermen supported the idea of the
park, some objected to the cost, which will come from the general
fund. The project is expected to begin this year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Judge to Junk Cases With No Medical Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Tennissen, writing for The Southeast Texas Record,
reported that a Texas judge is ready to dismiss more than a 1,000
asbestos and silica cases for failing to have medical reports
filed by a Sept. 1 deadline, but the plaintiffs' attorneys say
that deadline is unconstitutional.

Tort reforms enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2005 mandated
that plaintiffs who said they were harmed by asbestos exposure
submit a report showing that they have been diagnosed with a
malignant asbestos-related cancer and that is was specifically
asbestos exposure that caused their illness. The medical report
must include a physical examination of the plaintiff and a
detailed occupational, exposure, medical and smoking history.

At the time the reform law was enacted, all pending litigation
that didn't allege malignant asbestos was moved to an inactive
docket until required reports were submitted. But the new law did
not include a compliance date, so many cases have lingered for
years.

Last year, lawmakers passed House Bill 1325, which required all
asbestos plaintiffs whose cases were pending in multidistrict
pretrial court to file an expert medical report no later than
Sept. 1, 2014, or face dismissal.

Harris County Judge Joseph Halbach Jr. is faced with about 5,000
cases pending in Texas State Silica Products Liability Litigation
multi-district pre-trial court that have not met the medical
report deadline. Halbach notified plaintiffs' attorneys that he
intends to dismiss their cases on Oct. 20.

A group of attorneys representing about 1,000 plaintiffs is
fighting the deadline, claiming the changes to Subsection 90.010
of the Texas Civil Procedures and Remedies Code are
unconstitutional. In March, they filed a motion to stop
enforcement of the statute, but Halbach rejected their argument in
August.

On Sept. 22, the plaintiffs submitted an appeal to the Texas
Supreme Court to have the law declared unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs' attorneys involved include Guy Fisher of
Beaumont's Provost Umphrey Law Firm and Lance Bradley of McPherson
Hughes Bradley Wimberley Steele & Chatelain in Port Arthur.

The other attorneys are Mike Martin of Maloney Martin LLP in
Houston, F. Scott Baldwin Jr. of Baldwin & Baldwin LLP in
Marshall, D. Allen Hossley of Hossley Embry LLP in Tyler, Cory
Itkin of Arnold & Itkin in Houston, James "Buddy" Bell of Corpus
Christi, Geoff Henley of Henley & Henley PC in Dallas, Hector
Gonzalez of San Antonio, Michael Lowenberg of Gardere Wynne Sewell
LLP in Dallas, Russell Cook of The Cook Law Firm in Austin, Scott
Hooper of Houston, Justin Shrader of Schrader & Associates LLP in
Houston, Steven Kherkher of Williams Kherkher in Houston and Mark
Goranson of Goranson King PLLC in Houston.

Defendant companies named in the lawsuits include 3M, Baker
Hughes, Amcol International, American Porcelain Enamel, Pulmosan
Safety, Air Liquide, American Optical, Aearo Co., Reynolds Metals,
A C and S Inc., Able Supply, Lone Star Industries, US Silica,
Alamo Cement Co., Oglebay Norton, Clemtex Ltd., Moldex Metric, ACF
Industries and Eastern Safety.

In April after the plaintiffs attorneys filed their motion, Harvey
Ferguson Jr. of the Defense Liaison Steering Committee wrote to
the counsel that since they failed to provide or "make the effort
to serve" a report that complies with Chapter 90, the defense will
continue to oppose their motions.

"It is our position that you cannot bypass the obligations of the
statute or circumvent Defendants' opportunity to file objections
specific to each plaintiff," he wrote.

"We will seek dismissal of your constitutional challenge until
each claimant has shown how the statute is allegedly
unconstitutional when applied to his or her particular
circumstances."

TXSC Case No. 14-0757


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Autauga County Courthouse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Roney, writing for Montgomery Advertiser, reported that
asbestos floor tiles have been found in an office being renovated
in the Autauga County Courthouse, in Alabama.

A warning sign listing the dangers of asbestos went up as crews
worked to remove the tiles. One of the circuit clerk's offices is
having old carpet removed when the tiles were discovered, said
Steve Golsan, county administrator.

"We didn't know the tiles were there," he said. "Our contractor
informed us and another contractor who is licensed and specializes
in asbestos removal was called in to properly remove and dispose
of the tiles. All precautions are being taken to contain the
asbestos.

"There shouldn't be any health risks to employees working in the
courthouse or the public coming and going in the courthouse."

Pauline Webb, who had business in the courthouse, isn't so sure.

"You hear asbestos, and it just startles you," she said. "I don't
know why they didn't close the courthouse until this gets fixed."

Work began removing the tiles about noon and the job was completed
about 4 p.m., he said. The work area is on the first floor of the
older portion of the courthouse, which was built in the early
1900s. An addition was added to the rear of the original building
in the 1960's.

Breathing in "high levels" of asbestos fibers over a period of
time could lead to several forms of lung cancer and asbestosis,
the scarring of the lungs, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's website.

Asbestos was commonly used in the construction in older homes and
buildings, according the Consumer Products Safety Commission's
website. Those items included floor tiles, adhesives used on
certain flooring products and insulating pipes.

The best approach to handling asbestos that is in good condition
is to leave it alone, the commission's website shows.

There are likely more asbestos floor tiles in other offices in the
older portion of the courthouse, Golsan said.

"From what I understand as long as it it covered and in good
shape, it's not a danger," he said. "We have carpets in the
offices that are covering those tiles."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quake Damage, Fibro Trap Mail at Post Office
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Huffman, writing for Napa Valley Register, reported that
the downtown post office building in Napa, California, remains
closed for earthquake repairs, leaving some mail trapped inside
the Franklin Street location because of quake damage and asbestos
contamination.

Mail belonging to customers who have P.O. boxes inside the older
downtown building or those who had vacation holds on mail before
the Aug. 24 temblor remains inaccessible, said U.S. Postal Service
spokesperson Gus Ruiz.

"The building is unsound," he said. "We can't get into it to
retrieve that mail."

In addition, "There is most likely asbestos in the interior of the
Franklin Street post office. Even if we get in, we need to make
sure everything is sanitized, including the mail. It has to be
cleaned."

Asbestos remediation experts will perform that process, he said.
He did not know when that might happen or how much asbestos will
be found.

"We are gathering all that info from operations people as we
speak," said Ruiz. "I'm waiting for an update from our structural
engineers."

Scaffolding had been erected at the damaged corners of the
downtown post office building, a masonry building from the 1930s
where walls cracked and holes appeared during the Aug. 24
earthquake.

Workers were seen on site. Some bracing had been installed around
the shifted columns of brick, but loose bricks had not been
removed. The windows facing First Street remain shattered.

Ruiz could not provide cost estimates on the amount of damage or
when either post office building will reopen.  Ruiz said he was
unsure of how many P.O. boxes are inside the Franklin Street
building or the number of residents that had requested vacation
holds at the time of the quake. Mail to those P.O. boxes that
arrived after Aug. 24 has since been rerouted to the postal annex
across Randolph Street next to Billco's, he noted.

Those with mail trapped at the downtown post office will receive a
letter from the post office as soon as the pre-earthquake mail can
be retrieved, he said. In the meantime, questions can be directed
to postmaster Juliana Davison at the Trancas Street building.

The Trancas Street post office, a more modern structure, was not
as damaged as the Franklin Street location was, said Ruiz. It
reopened late in September.

There was some asbestos contamination in the building but it has
been cleaned up and the mail was cleaned during that process, he
said. Some internal postal operations have also been moved to a
south Napa corporate park.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 75% of English, Welsh Schools Contaminated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sara Hunt, writing for Access-Legal, reported that a recent
parliamentary report has estimated that three out of every four
schools in England and Wales contain asbestos.

In addition to this revelation, the House of Commons education
committee has heard up to 300 former pupils die each year from
exposure to asbestos.

As a result, numerous organizations including the National Union
of Teachers (NUT) have called for urgent action to ensure that all
materials containing asbestos are removed from educational
facilities as soon as possible.

The report entitled Asbestos in schools: The need for action
provides a comprehensive background to the problem stating that:

'Fourteen thousand schools were built after the Second World War
and almost all those built before 1975 contain asbestos. Most of
the other schools that were refurbished during this period also
contain asbestos.'

The report also identifies materials that cause the greatest
concern when it comes to asbestos including lagging used on pipes
and in boiler rooms and also areas where asbestos has been
sprayed, such as ceilings and around structural beams.

The report further highlights the fact that Britain has the
highest Mesothelioma incidence in the world, at more than twice
that of France, Germany or the USA. An HSE report concluded that
this is because of the quantity and types of asbestos that Britain
imported although all types of asbestos can cause Mesothelioma.
In order to find a solution to the issue, the report calls for a
phased removal of all materials containing asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winchester Engineer's Cancer Linked to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that an engineer from Winchester,
England, died of asbestos-related cancer but the coroner could not
be sure it was caused by worktime exposure to the deadly material.

Derek Boardman, 87, died in August of mesothelioma at home, an
inquest heard.

The hearing in Winchester heard that Mr Boardman, of Birch Close,
Colden Common, was an electrical engineer.

His son in law Graham Wingrove, of Lichen Way, Marchwood, said he
may have been exposed to asbestos as a teenager while working in a
wire factory, later during national service in the Royal Engineers
or while working for the Central Electricity Generating Board.

But assistant central Hampshire coroner Sarah Whitby said she
could not be sure how he contracted the cancer and so recorded a
verdict of death by natural causes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Shipwright Dies Due to Contact With Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plymouth Herald reported that a former shipwright in England
who worked on the HMS Ark Royal, HMS Hermes and HMS Plymouth died
as a result of his regular contact with asbestos, an inquest
heard.

Maurice Dart, of Little Ash Gardens, St Budeaux, passed away on
July 5 after being diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma.

Assistant coroner Karen Rea read out statements at the inquest
which explained how Mr Dart, who died aged 83, had been a
shipwright at Devonport Dockyard since 1951 and had worked on a
host of naval craft as they underwent refit and repairs.

Among them he worked on the HMS Ark Royal, Hermes, Eagle, Belfast
and Plymouth as well as a number of submarines. During that time
the working conditions were described as "extremely dirty and with
large quantities of asbestos", with no proper washing facilities
and a minimum of eight-hour shifts.

He later took on a desk job but was thought to be in some contact
with asbestos.  It was explained that the latency period between
exposure and diagnoses was between 20 and 40 years.

The inquest heard that following diagnoses Mr Dart received
medical compensation in 2007, but by 2013 his condition worsened.

Ms Rea recorded a verdict of industrial disease, with the cause of
death being mesothelioma.


                              *********

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  * * *