CAR_Public/141024.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, October 24, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 212

                             Headlines

AARON'S INC: Settles Privacy Suit for $28.4 Million
AMERIPLAN CORP: Arbitration Order in Sharpe Case Partially Upheld
ASPEN BIOPHARMA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wolfe" Suit
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Plaintiffs Granted Leave to File Amended Suit
AVIS BUDGET: Judge Rejects Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlement

BAIN CAPITAL: February 11 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
BAYER AG: Suit Seeks to Redress Deceptive Marketing Practices
BERNALILLO, NM: County Commissioners Sued Over Failure to Pay OT
BEST BUY: Directed to Disclose Contact Info in "Hernandez" Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Heads to Trial Next Month in Mesh Suits

BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued Over Defective Cross Timber Decking
BUMBLE BEE: "Garrett" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
CARTOON NETWORK: Georgia Judge Tosses Privacy Class Action
COMENITY CAPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Payment Amount
CREDIT ONE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kristensen" Suit Claims

CREDIT SUISSE: Dismissal Bid Ruling Deferred on Show Cause Order
CSX CORP: Proceedings in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case Deferred
CURB PLANET: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Garcia" Suit Claims
EMC MORTGAGE: Ambac Loses Bid to Revive RMBS Contract Claims
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Kristensen" Action

ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Court Stayed "Burger" Class Action
EVERGREEN HELICOPTERS: Forum Non Conveniens Applied in Crash Suit
FACILITIES CONSULTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FANNIE MAE: Court Tosses Bid to Admit Expert to Protective Order
GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Unseals Evidence in Asbestos Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Nov. 6 Hearing in Ignition-Switch Cases
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Cross-Motion
GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bonelli" Suit Claims
GS YUASA: IPPs in Antitrust Suit Allowed to Amend Complaint
GT ADVANCED: Faces "Boccabella" Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports

IEC ELECTRONICS: Receives Insurance Settlement
INTERMOUNTAIN COMMUNITY: Facing Class Action Over Merger Deal
IRAN: Judge Awards $622 Million to U.S. Embassy Bombing Victims
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Files Answer in Koetsch and MLAF Litigations
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Banes" Litigation in S.D. Indiana

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Tarapara" Litigation in S.D. Indiana
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Jindal" Litigation in S.D. Indiana
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Gallien" Litigation in Calif. State Court
JOS. A. BANK: Allows "Lucas" Plaintiffs to Amend Suit
JP MORGAN: Bid to Dismiss W&S Companies' Suit Partially Granted

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresentations
KEITH SCHAEFER: Bid to Junk SORTS Residents' Suit Partially OK'd
KIMBERLY BUTLER: Ill. Inmates Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Suit
LIFE PARTNERS: Court Stayed Proceedings in "Stone" Class Action
LIFE PARTNERS: 5th Dist Court Rejects Appeal on Class Designation

LIFE PARTNERS: Fifth Court of Appeals Stayed Bellwether Trial
LIFE PARTNERS: No Trial Date Set in "Steuben" Class Action
LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Suit Over "Search for References" Function
LMKS LLC: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LOOKS GREAT: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

LOUIS GARNEAU: Recalls P-09 Bicycle Helmets Due to Injury Risk
LUNADA BIOMEDICAL: Court Upholds SLAPPP Ruling in Amberen Suit
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Reached Deal in Principle in "Benner" Case
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Motion to Dismiss "Hoyt" Suit Granted in Part
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "DeSantis" Action

MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Suit by Abaco Club Residents Remains Inactive
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: No Action Taken on Appeal in "Krishna" Case
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Parties in "Charles" Suit in Arbitration
MEDTRONICS INC: "Anders" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
MERCK & CO: Failed to Convince Court to Toss Out Bross Class Suit

METAL SOURCE: Faces "Lim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MGIC INVESTMENT: Continues to Face Actions Over RESPA Violations
MICHAEL MEISNER: Dist. Ct. Tosses Class Cert. Bid in "Davis" Case
MONTREALIMPORT.COM: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, Action Claims
MOTT'S LLP: Court Grants Partial Summary Bid in "Rahman" Case

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Opt-Out Players Lose "Publicity Rights" Suit
NETWORK CAPITAL: Lower Ct. Ruling on "Papke" Arbitration Upheld
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Judge Stays Tainted-Steroid Litigation
NEW JERSEY: South Orange-Maplewood Sued Over Tracking Policies
NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Attendants' Wage Class Action Can Proceed

NU SKIN: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
OML ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
ORACLE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged No-Poach Pact
OVERLAND STORAGE: Inks MOU in Shareholders Litigation
PASCHALL TRUCK: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Facsimile Messages

PURE FOOD: Popeye's Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid OT
R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Aycock" Case
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Sued Over Defective Paint Products Design
SAFEWAY INC: Delaware Court Approves Class Action Settlement
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Improper Marketing Case Transferred to N.J.

SENIOR MIDWEST: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOUTHERN SOLUTIONS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit Over Coupon Processing Services Stayed
SUPERVALU INC: 8th Circuit Denied Petition for En Banc Review
SUPERVALU INC: Payments in FWW Case to Begin October or November

SUPERVALU INC: Faces "Hanff" & McPeak" Suits Over Intrustion
SUZUKI MOTOR: Faces "Dinwiddie" Suit in OK Over Vehicle Defects
TAKEDA PHARMA: Recovers Emails Following Spoliation Ruling
TEXAS: Panel Refuses to Coordinate Suits v. State Prisons
UNITED ROAD: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 11th Cir. Scolds Lower Court Over Discovery
USAA LIFE INSURANCE: "Saunders" Suit Removed to Texas Dist. Court
WELLS FARGO: Settles Mortgage Discrimination Suit for $5 Million
WYNN'S EXTENDED: Court Dismisses TCCWNA Claim in "Johnson" Suit
WESTERN UNION: Judge Amends Order on Atty. Fees in Tennille Suit

ZIMMER: MDL Plaintiffs Want Judge to Impose Spoliation Sanctions

* Banks Seek Exemption From FTC's Robocall Rules
* SEC's Enforcement Division Head Defends Broken-Windows Policy
* Vaccine Cases Still Fill Washington D.C. Special Court's Docket


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Study Seeks to Track Ambler's Fibro Legacy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco To Contribute $325MM to Yarway Fibro Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $933-Mil. NARCO Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 11,352 Pending Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witness List Objections in Coverage Suit Junked

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to File Amici Curiae in NY PI Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Partially Granted in WTC Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer May Revise Answer in Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City, Owner Dispute Fibro Concerns in Bldg.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Traders Die Weekly From Fibro, Agency Says

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Rules in Insurance Coverage Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motions to Seal Claimants' Info Too Vague
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Delays Putnam Bridge Completion
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Car Deal Balks at Law Firm's Settlement Practice
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Insurer Freed From Arbitration

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Win Landmark Legal Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Home Renovators Are Third Wave of Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malone Men Get Prison for Improper Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP300,000 Claim Over Fibro Death Thrown Out
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Holding Up Demolition of Butte Bldg.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Seal Too Vague to Satisfy Garlock Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths in Melbourne to be Probed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Classroom Dust Blamed for Former Teacher's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyneside Traders Exposed to Deadly Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Ruling for Micarta Case Defendants

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delays in Removing Wangkatjungka Fibro Worry MP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit Tossed for Lack of Causation Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Grants Oklahoma $240,000 to Reduce Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winemaker's Mesothelioma Blamed on Filter
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrison Commissioners to Discuss Fibro Study

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir Rules Against Former Navy Plaintiff
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkCover Finds Fibro in Sydney Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Commissioners Give OK for Fibro Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $100,000 Grant to Rid Community Center of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Allowed to Sue Former Joiners

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Continues in Mount Manresa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Issue Narrows Over "Misrepresentation" Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Law Shields Heidelberg From Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP to Appeal Court Win by Fibro Victim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trapped Workers Exposed to Fibro After Collapse

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana to Receive $137,000 to Reduce Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Led to Death of British Legion Member
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Unseals Evidence in Garlock Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Toll Rises From Wunderlich Factory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns for North Balgowlah

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Causes Diversion on Anstruther Road
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Claims Being Killed Off by Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dutch Ministry to Tackle Fibro Removal Fraud
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Judge Remands Fibro Case v. Boeing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at 2 Hillsboro Structures

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Traces Found in Exhibit at Irish Museum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at Clovis 'Hunted House'
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Laid Against Former Grace Hospital Owner


                            *********


AARON'S INC: Settles Privacy Suit for $28.4 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that rent-to-own
retailer Aaron's Inc. will pay $28.4 million, including $25
million in consumer refunds, to settle claims that it violated
California consumer and privacy laws, Attorney General Kamala
Harris announced on Oct. 13.

The settlement stems in part from Aaron's installation of spyware
on its rental computers without customers' knowledge.  The
monitoring software allowed Aaron's franchisees to log users'
keystrokes, grab screenshots and even capture images and sounds
through the computers' devices.  Another feature presented users
with "fake" software registration screens, a ruse, the attorney
general's office said, to collect consumers' information.

"Aaron's concealed its illegal privacy and business practices from
customers in a deceptive attempt to avoid California's robust
consumer protection laws and increase its profits," Harris said in
a statement.

Garet Hayes, director of public relations for Atlanta-based
Aaron's, noted that neither the company nor its 75 California
franchisees admitted any wrongdoing in the settlement.

"Aaron's Inc. and its franchisees are committed to ensuring that
our business practices in California and everywhere meet or exceed
both legal requirements and the expectations of our customers,"
Mr. Hayes wrote in an email.

Aaron's had already agreed to stop using computer-monitoring
technology, except in cases when customers ask for technical
support, as part of a 2013 settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission.  The company said then that it used the software to
track the computers of customers who had missed payments or
defaulted on their contracts.

Gov. Jerry Brown also signed legislation in September that will
require rent-to-own businesses to obtain the consent of customers
when GPS tracking devices are installed in their products.

Mr. Harris' complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
also alleged that Aaron's charged improper late fees, overcharged
customers who paid off contracts early, failed to disclose
mandatory fees and misled consumers about its sweepstakes forms,
which were used to collect sales leads but were never included in
any drawings.

Under terms of the California settlement, customers who made lease
payments to Aaron's between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2014, may
be eligible for a partial refund.  Aaron's will also pay $3.4
million in civil penalties and fees.

Deputy Attorney General Michael Elisofon signed the agreement for
the attorney general's office.  Robert Kamerschen, Aaron's general
counsel, and Alston & Bird partner Dominique Shelton --
dominique.shelton@alston.com -- represented the rent-to-own
company.


AMERIPLAN CORP: Arbitration Order in Sharpe Case Partially Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHN SHARPE; CINDY GUARISCO; WILLIAM CHASE MOEN; GARY
DOWNARD; for themselves as individuals and on behalf of themselves
and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
AMERIPLAN CORPORATION, a Texas Corporation; DENNIS BLOOM, an
individual; DANIEL BLOOM, an individual; DOES, 1-100 Inclusive;,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-10922 appeals a district court order
compelling arbitration.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action on May 21, 2012, in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.
AmeriPlan removed the case to federal court. Then, invoking the
venue provisions in the parties' Sales Director Agreements,
AmeriPlan successfully sought a transfer to the Northern District
of Texas.  Consequently, the magistrate judge issued an opinion
recommending dismissal of the action in favor of arbitration. She
recommended, however, that the arbitration not be governed by two
clauses she found to be substantively unconscionable.  The
district court adopted the recommendation and ordered that the
case be dismissed without prejudice in favor of arbitration but
with the two unconscionable provisions severed from the
arbitration provisions. Plaintiffs appealed the decision
compelling arbitration. Plaintiffs raised numerous challenges to
the arbitration clause, including that the arbitration clause was
not supported by consideration, is illusory, is unconscionable,
does not cover the dispute in this case, and was waived because it
was not raised early enough in the lawsuit.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, in an opinion
entered October 16, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/m6vxFafrom Leagle.com, held that with respect to
Plaintiffs Sharpe, Moen, and Downard, the Fifth Circuit's reverses
the district court's order dismissing the claims and compelling
arbitration and remands for further proceedings consistent with
its opinion.  With respect to Guarisco, the Fifth Circuit affirms
the district court's order dismissing her claims and compelling
arbitration pursuant to all but the two severed unconscionable
provisions of the arbitration agreement.


ASPEN BIOPHARMA: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wolfe" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Wolfe, Mike Marnhout, and Shazi Iqbal filed a
class action complaint against AspenBio Pharma, Inc., and several
of its current and former executives.  Suing on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased that company's common
stock between February 2007 and July 2010, the plaintiffs alleged
that AspenBio had violated section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
Together, these provisions "prohibit fraudulent acts done in
connection with securities transactions."  The Investors also
asserted "control person" claims under section 20(a) of the Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a), against the individual defendants.

A district court granted AspenBio's Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Investors' claims based
on a finding that the Investors failed to allege facts
establishing the first element of a section-10 claim, the
existence of a false or misleading statement.  The Plaintiffs
appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
district court's order dismissing the Investors' amended
complaint, after concluding that the Investors failed to
adequately plead the element of scienter.  On that basis, and
exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, the Third
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.

The appeals case is JOHN WOLFE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; MIKE MARNHOUT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; SHAZI IQBAL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. ASPENBIO PHARMA, INC., a Colorado corporation;
RICHARD G. DONNELLY; GREGORY PUSEY; JEFFREY G. McGONEGAL; MARK
COLGIN; ROBERT CASPARI, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-1406 (3d
Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Decision dated Oct. 17, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/x76J2Kfrom Leagle.com.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Plaintiffs Granted Leave to File Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The court granted plaintiffs in a class action against
athenahealth, Inc. leave to file a third amended complaint by
October 23, 2014, and denied the Company's motion to dismiss as
moot, athenahealth said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its
initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the
day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011.

On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading
statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical
clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which
caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the
timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On December 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order
dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint. On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which asserts substantially similar claims as
those set forth in the first amended complaint.

On July 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 2, 2014, the court granted
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint by October 23,
2014, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.

"We deny the allegations in the second amended complaint and will
contest the claims vigorously," the Company said.

athenahealth provides cloud-based business services that help
health care providers achieve and sustain financial health by
collecting more revenue and greatly reducing their administrative
work burden.


AVIS BUDGET: Judge Rejects Wage-and-Hour Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
proposed class settlement between Avis Budget Car Rental LLC and
its shift operations managers would allocate nearly 40 percent of
the $760,000 compensation fund to plaintiffs' attorneys, but the
amount class members would receive was unclear, a Florida judge
said in refusing to approve the deal.

U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven of the Middle District of Florida
dismissed, without prejudice, the parties' joint motion to settle
the claims that the company required the managers to work overtime
without compensation for the 10 extra hours.  Budget Rent A Car
System Inc. is a co-defendant.

Lead plaintiff Bernar Espanol claimed, as well, that the company
designated him and his fellow shift managers as exempt from
overtime, even though their duties qualified them as nonexempt.
The complaint, Espanol v. Avis Budget Car Rental, alleged that
Avis violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed agreement, filed on Sept. 16, would provide a
settlement fund of $762,000, from which $300,000 in attorneys'
fees would be deducted, along with employment taxes, and $12,000
for Espanol.  The document specifies that class members would
receive minimum payments of $250, depending on whether they were
subject to motions for summary judgment.  The number of class
members is 115, according to the settlement papers.

The judge wrote that the language regarding the summary judgment
test was too vague to determine precisely what it means and how
many class members would be affected.  Judge Scriven said she
could not assess the deal without more information about what the
settlement would bring class members.

"Because the parties are in possession of the class employment
data, they should know at this juncture the relative amount to be
paid to each of the parties plaintiff as a result of the
settlement," Judge Scriven wrote.  "To determine the
reasonableness of the proposed settlement, the court finds it
necessary to review these calculateons."

Avis is represented by attorneys with Reed Smith; Littler
Mendelson; and Fisher & Phillips.  Plaintiffs' counsel are
attorneys with Feldman & Morgado and Moukawsher & Walsh.


BAIN CAPITAL: February 11 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Lead Case No. 1:07-cv-12388-WGY

CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE

KIRK DAHL, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

BAIN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

IF YOU SOLD OR EXCHANGED COMMON STOCK OF (1) AMC ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., (2) SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS INC., (3) ARAMARK CORPORATION, (4)
KINDER MORGAN, INC., (5) HCA INC., (6) FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR,
INC., (7) HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., AND/OR (8) TXU CORP.
(COLLECTIVELY, THE "TARGET COMPANIES"), AS PART OF THE LEVERAGED
BUYOUT ("LBO") OF ANY OF THE TARGET COMPANIES, YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROCEEDINGS IN A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND
YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A CASH PAYMENT FROM CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENTS.

What Is This Case About?

Named Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the United States
federal antitrust laws by participating in illegal conspiracies as
set forth in Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint to limit competition
among themselves and their co-conspirators with the goal of
reducing the sale prices of the publicly-traded Target Companies
that were sold pursuant to LBOs.  Named Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct caused the shareholders of
each Target Company to receive an unlawfully depressed price per
share, resulting in significant economic damages to the putative
Settlement Class, as defined in the Notice of Class Certification,
Proposed Class Action Settlements with Defendants, and Final
Approval Hearing (the "Full Notice").  Defendants deny any
wrongdoing or liability, and the Court has not ruled on the merits
of the claims or defenses.

The Settlements

Proposed settlements have been reached with Defendants Bain
Capital Partners, LLC ("Bain Capital"), The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. ("Goldman Sachs"), The Blackstone Group L.P. ("Blackstone"),
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR"), TPG Capital, L.P.
("TPG"), TC Group III, L.P. and TC Group IV, L.P. ("Carlyle"), and
Silver Lake Technology Management, L.L.C. ("Silver Lake")
(collectively, the "Settling Defendants") in the above-captioned
action (the "Action"), and the Court has granted preliminary
approval of those settlements (the "Settlements").  Pursuant to
the Settlements, the Settling Defendants have agreed to pay a
total of $590,500,000 in cash (the aggregate of multiple separate
settlement amounts) for the benefit of the putative Settlement
Class (defined below) in settlement of the Settlement Class's
claims against the Settling Defendants.

Who Is a Settlement Class Member?

You are likely a member of the Settlement Class if you sold or
exchanged your common stock in (1) AMC Entertainment Inc., (2)
SunGard Data Systems Inc., (3) Aramark Corporation, (4) Kinder
Morgan, Inc., (5) HCA Inc., (6) Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., (7)
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., and/or (8) TXU Corp., as part of the
LBO of each of the preceding Target Companies.  Additional
information is contained in the Full Notice, including information
on who is or is not a member of the Settlement Class.

What do the Proposed Settlements Provide?

The Settling Defendants will pay a total of $590.5 million in cash
(the aggregate of multiple separate settlement amounts) into
numerous Settlement Funds.  The Settlement Funds, plus interest
earned from the date they are established, less costs, fees,
service award(s), and expenses ("Net Settlement Funds"), will be
divided among all eligible Settlement Class Members who send in
valid claim forms before the December 29, 2014 deadline
("Authorized Claimants").  Costs, fees, and expenses include
Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, the costs of
notifying Settlement Class Members, including the costs of
printing and mailing the Full Notice, the cost of publishing
notice, and the costs of claims administration.

What Are My Rights?

If you do nothing or submit a Proof of Claim Form, you will remain
in the Settlement Class and be bound by the proposed Settlements
if they are approved.  If you remain in the Settlement Class, you
may be eligible to share in the Settlement Funds subject to the
conditions set forth in the Full Notice, if you complete and
submit the Proof of Claim Form no later than December 29, 2014.
To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
timely written request for exclusion by December 29, 2014.  To
object to the proposed Settlements, Plan of Allocation, Named
Plaintiffs' request for service awards, and/or Co-Lead Counsel's
request for fees and expenses, you must file a written objection
with the Court and serve Co-Lead Counsel at the addresses below no
later than December 29, 2014.

Final Approval Hearing

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled to be held at the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
February 11, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.  The date and location for this
hearing may be changed without further notice to the Settlement
Class.

This Is a Summary, Where Can I Get More Information?

You can get additional information concerning the proposed
Settlements, including a copy of the Full Notice, the Proof of
Claim and Release Form, and the Settlement Agreements (which,
among other things, contain definitions for the defined terms used
in this Summary Notice), by visiting
www.PrivateEquityLBOSettlement.com, calling the Settlement
Administrator toll-free at 1-877-276-7350, or writing to the
Settlement Administrator at:

Private Equity Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
Settlement Administrator
PO Box 4390
Portland, OR 97208-4390

Do not contact the Court in connection with the proposed
Settlements.  If you have any further questions or comments, you
may contact Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class:

David R. Scott
Christopher M. Burke
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 233-4565

Patrick J. Coughlin
David W. Mitchell
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-3301
(619) 231-1058

K. Craig Wildfang
Thomas J. Undlin
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue
2800 LaSalle Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 349-8500

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE
CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: September 29, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


BAYER AG: Suit Seeks to Redress Deceptive Marketing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Gallagher and Ilana Farar, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Bayer AG, Bayer Corporation, and
Bayer Healthcare LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-04601 (N.D. Cal., October
15, 2014), seeks to  redress the Defendants'  deceptive practices
in misrepresenting the health benefits of varieties of its One A
Day multivitamins.

The Defendants own and operate a healthcare and medical products
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence D. King, Esq.
      Linda M. Fong, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, California 94104
      Telephone: (415) 772-4700
      Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
      E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
              lfong@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Lauren I. Dubick, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, New York 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
              ldubick@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Stephen Gardner, Esq.
      Amanda Howell, Esq.
      CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
      5646 Milton Street, Suite 714
      Dallas, Texas 75206
      Telephone: (214) 827-2774
      Facsimile: (214) 827-2787
      E-mail: sgardner@cspinet.org
              ahowell@cspinet.org


BERNALILLO, NM: County Commissioners Sued Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeri Barros-Vera, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo
County, Case No. 1:14-cv-00928 (D.N.M., October 15, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Board of County Commissioners of Bernalillo County is a political
subdivision of the State of New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane C. Youtz, Esq.
      James A. Montalbano, Esq.
      Stephen Curtice, Esq.
      YOUTZ & VALDEZ PC
      900 Gold Ave. SW
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 244-1200
      Facsimile: (505) 244-9700
      E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com
              james@youtzvaldez.com
              stephen@youtzvaldez.com


BEST BUY: Directed to Disclose Contact Info in "Hernandez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California granted a plaintiff's request
for an order compelling Best Buy Co., Inc., to disclose contact
information for putative class members so the plaintiff can gather
information needed to present to the District Court in a motion
for class certification.

The case is JACK HERNANDEZ an individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY CO., INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13CV2587-JM(KSC)(S.D. Calif.).  A full-text
copy of Magistrate Crawford's Order dated Oct. 15, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/1dIGbSfrom Leagle.com.

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Defendant, is represented by:

         Barbara J Miller, Esq.
         Christopher M. Robertson, Esq.
         Sarah Drechsler, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
         Irvine, CA 92614-3508
         Tel: (949) 399-7000
         Fax: (949) 399-7001
         Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                crobertson@morganlewis.com
                sdrechsler@morganlewis.com

Best Buy is a multi-national, multi-channel retailer of technology
products, including tablets and computers, televisions, mobile
phones, large and small appliances, entertainment products,
digital imaging, and related accessories.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Heads to Trial Next Month in Mesh Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that on the heels of losing a $73.4 million verdict in Texas state
court, Boston Scientific Corp. is headed to trial next month in
two federal courts over its pelvic mesh devices.

The company faces 13,000 of the 60,000 lawsuits that have been
filed over transvaginal mesh devices, used to treat incontinence
and pelvic organ prolapse in women.  It goes to trial in federal
court for the first time on Nov. 3 in both West Virginia and
Florida.

Last month, a Dallas jury rendered the $73.4 million verdict
against Boston Scientific, most of which represented punitive
damages.  The verdict was the first to go against Boston
Scientific; the company won two verdicts in separate pelvic-mesh
actions in Massachusetts state court during the summer.

In federal court, jurors will hear a number of lawsuits that have
been combined into two separate trials.  Pretrial conferences are
scheduled for Oct. 23.

Four women in West Virginia claim Boston Scientific's Obtryx
sling, implanted for treatment of urinary incontinence, caused
them pain and other problems and, in some cases, subsequent
surgeries to remove the device.

On Oct. 9, U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern
District of West Virginia allowed punitive damages under West
Virginia law to be applied in the cases, citing evidence company
officials knew the sling was made of a polypropylene material not
intended to be implanted in humans.

"A reasonable jury could find that by ignoring a warning . . . and
failing to conduct clinical testing, BSC's actions were wanton,
willful, or reckless under West Virginia punitive damages law,"
Goodwin wrote.

A Boston Scientific representative did not respond to a request
for comment, and the company's attorney, Jon Strongman, a partner
at Kansas City, Mo.'s Shook, Hardy & Bacon, did not return a
telephone call.

Boston Scientific has moved to sever the cases in favor of
individual trials, claiming the facts in each -- such as the
women's health histories, physicians, injuries and treatments --
make a consolidated trial "unworkable."  Judge Goodwin hasn't
ruled on that motion.

"They seem to want to do everything they can to avoid trying
cases," said Harry Bell of The Bell Law Firm in Charleston, W.Va.,
liaison counsel for the plaintiffs.  "We're prepared to go forward
to trial."

But on Oct. 8, lead plaintiffs attorneys dismissed three cases
that had originally been included in the West Virginia trial.

Colead plaintiffs attorneys Aimee Wagstaff --
aimee.wagstaff@ahw-law.com -- founding partner of Andrus Wagstaff
in Lakewood, Colo., and Clayton Clark, managing partner of
Houston's Clark Love & Hutson, didn't respond to requests for
comment.

Mr. Bell couldn't say why the cases were dismissed.

Judge Goodwin has selected U.S. District Judge Irene Berger of the
Southern District of West Virginia to oversee the trial, which
takes place in Charleston.

Judge Goodwin will oversee the Florida cases, all of which deal
with Boston Scientific's Pinnacle device, used to treat pelvic
organ prolapse.  The trial will take place in Miami.

"Every indication from the court has been that these cases are
going to trial," said Shelley Hutson, a partner at Clark Love
serving as lead plaintiffs attorney in the Florida trial.


BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued Over Defective Cross Timber Decking
------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Warren, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Building Materials Corporation of America
d/b/a GAF Materials Corporation, Case No. 8:14-cv-00316 (D. Neb.,
October 15, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's false and
misleading representation of the Cross Timber Decking product as
requiring low maintenance and easy for installation that does not
require staining or sealing, when in fact it is defective, warps,
swells and expands at rates beyond what should be occurring with a
product meant for outdoors.

Building Materials Corporation of America is a manufacturer of
residential exterior building products in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
      WHITFIELD, BRYSON LAW FIRM
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5005
      E-mail: matt@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Timothy J. O'Brien, Esq.
      HAUPTMAN, O'BRIEN LAW FIRM
      1005 South 107th Avenue, Suite 200
      Omaha, NE 68114
      Telephone: (402) 390-9000
      Facsimile: (402) 397-7915
      E-mail: tobrien@hauptman-obrien.net


BUMBLE BEE: "Garrett" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, issued an order dated
Oct. 17, 2014, granting a motion to remand the class action
lawsuit styled PATRICK GARRETT, JEFF MAINS, and LINDA EUSTICE,
individually and on behalf of herself of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO.
5:12-CV-02546-LHK (N.D. Calif.), to the Santa Clara County
Superior Court.  A full-text copy of Judge Koh's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/JXKSMTfrom Leagle.com.

Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Defendant, is represented by:

         Patrick Shaun Thompson, Esq.
         Forrest Arthur Hainline, Esq.
         GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
         Three Embarcadero Center
         24th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Tel: (415) 733-6000
         Fax: (415) 677-9041
         Email: pthomson@goodwinprocter.com
                fhainline@goodwinprocter.com


CARTOON NETWORK: Georgia Judge Tosses Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
Georgia federal judge has booted a proposed class action against
The Cartoon Network Inc. that alleged privacy violations, ruling
the personal information disclosed was too general to identify
individuals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on Oct. 8 granted the Cartoon
Network's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff Mark Ellis'
privacy was not violated under the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act by the network's collection of data about his video
choices and transmission of it to a web data analytics company.

North Carolina resident Ellis alleged that, when watching Cartoon
Network video clips on his Android mobile device, a record of
every video clip or TV show he viewed, along with the unique
Android identification number of his device, was shared with
British analytics company Bango.

A "big data" company, Bango collects such uniquely identifiable
information along with behavioral data about consumers to create
profiles of users' digital lives for sale to data brokers or use
in marketing, the complaint alleges in Ellis v. Cartoon Network.
Ellis never consented to the release of such "personally
identifiable information," and the network violated the law by
disclosing it, entitling the plaintiffs to an injunction and
damages, the complaint said.

The judge did not view it Ellis' way.  Judge Thrash found that
Mr. Ellis' Android identification number disclosed to Bango did
not qualify as personally identifiable information because it
could not be used alone to identify a specific person.

Judge Thrash cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit's 2004 ruling in Pruitt v. Comcast Cable Holdings LLC,
that disclosure of cable box ID codes could not be used to
identify someone without corresponding billing records, and
therefore alone did not qualify as personally identifiable
information.

Similarly, the judge wrote, Mr. Ellis' Android ID number had to be
used with information from other sources to identify him
specifically.

"Because the plaintiff has not alleged the disclosure of
personally identifiable information, he fails to state a claim
under the [act]," Judge Thrash wrote.

The Cartoon Network is represented by attorneys with the Zwillgen
law firm; Kirkland & Ellis; and Troutman Sanders.

Plaintiffs counsel are with Edelson and The Jordan Firm.


COMENITY CAPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Disclose Payment Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Comenity Capital Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-
08230 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose in each billing cycle the
monthly payment amount that is required for to eliminate the
outstanding balance in 36 months.

Comenity Capital Bank is a bank charted in the State of Delaware
with its principal place of business located at the Delaware
Corporate Center I, One Righter Parkway, Suite 100, Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Edozie, Esq.
      MADU, EDOZIE, MADU, PC
      3007 Eastchester Road
      Bronx, NY 10469
      Telephone: (718) 379-3500
      E-mail: john@edozie.com


CREDIT ONE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kristensen" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kristensen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:14-cv-
07963 (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff and on the cellular telephone in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection.

Credit One Bank, N.A. is a national association specializing in
consumer credit lending.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Thomas Martin, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
      6565 W. Sunset Ave., Ste. 410
      Los Angeles, CA 90028
      Telephone: (323) 940-1700
      Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
      E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com
              Nick@mblawapc.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Dismissal Bid Ruling Deferred on Show Cause Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willard Sharrette, David Goldman, and Esta Goldman brought a
federal securities law putative class action against Credit Suisse
International and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC on behalf of
themselves and all other persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired common stock of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
(ECD) between June 18, 2008 and February 14, 2012. The parties are
presently before the Court on Credit Suisse's motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint (CAC). Plaintiffs oppose the
motion.

District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong ordered the parties to show
cause why the case should not be transferred to the Southern
District of New York under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Because it
is unclear at this juncture whether the case should be
transferred, the Court said it will not address Credit Suisse's
motion to dismiss. The Court ordered the parties to file briefs,
not to exceed ten pages. Alternatively, the parties may file a
stipulation requesting that the case be transferred to the
Southern District of New York under Section 1404(a), she said.
In the event the case is not transferred, the Court will resolve
Credit Suisse's motion.

A copy of Judge Armstrong's October 14, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/rNcFEgfrom Leagle.com.

The case is WILLARD A. SHARRETTE, DAVID GOLDMAN, and ESTA GOLDMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, a foreign company,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, CASE NO. C 13-2783 SBA, (N.D.
Cal.).

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by
Patrick Edward Gibbs -- patrick.gibbs@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP & Allison S Davidson -- allison.davidson@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP.


CSX CORP: Proceedings in Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case Deferred
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court has deferred proceedings on the merits of the
Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation pending the outcome of the
class certification remand proceedings, CSX Corporation said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 15, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 26, 2014.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSX's
principal operating subsidiary, CSX Transportation, Inc. ("CSXT"),
and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision.

In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
class certification decision and remanded the case to the District
Court to reconsider its class certification decision. In October
2013, the District Court held a case management conference to
determine the scope and schedule of the remand proceedings.  The
District Court has deferred proceedings on the merits of the case
pending the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.

CSX Corporation ("CSX"), and together with its subsidiaries (the
"Company"), based in Jacksonville, Florida, is one of the nation's
leading transportation companies. The Company provides rail-based
transportation services including traditional rail service and the
transport of intermodal containers and trailers.


CURB PLANET: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Garcia" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Garcia, Gerardo Huerta, Gustavo Santos, and Luis Aguilar, ON
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Curb Planet,
Inc. and Ramiro Pedraza, Case No. 4:14-cv-02921 (S.D. Tex.,
October 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of building cement
curbs, driveways and sidewalks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMC MORTGAGE: Ambac Loses Bid to Revive RMBS Contract Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that in
the wake of the financial crisis, monoline insurers that
guaranteed residential mortgage-backed securities have turned to
state court in Manhattan to recoup billions they paid out in
insurance claims on the soured investments.  Insurers including
Ambac, Assured Guaranty, MBIA and Syncora filed dozens of so-
called put-back suits against the banks' mortgage subsidiaries,
alleging fraud and seeking to enforce repurchase agreements
designed to force originators to buy back bad loans.

The defendants have found some success rebuffing the monolines'
fraud allegations.  The question of whether the insurers have
standing to assert contract claims under the repurchase agreements
is less settled.  But on Oct. 16, the New York State Appellate
Division's First Department unanimously affirmed a lower court
decision dismissing breach of contract claims by Ambac against EMC
Mortgage LLC, a Bear Stearns mortgage unit acquired by JPMorgan
Chase & Co.

The lawsuit seeks to recover hundreds of millions of dollars that
Ambac paid out in claims triggered by the RMBS it insured.  But
the First Department panel ruled on Oct. 16 that Ambac doesn't
have standing to enforce the repurchase agreements governing the
mortgage loans -- only the trustee does.

"Ambac is not entitled to rewrite the agreements simply because it
dislikes, in hindsight, the agreements' terms," the court wrote.
It's the first word from a state appeals court on the standing
issue in the RMBS repurchase contracts, and could have broad
impact on other cases, bank lawyers say. (The decision comes 10
months after the same appeals court slammed the door on a $330
million put-back claim against a Deutsche Bank subsidiary because
it found that the statute of limitations had expired.)

Ambac's sole remedy, the appeals court ruled, is to try to get the
RMBS trustees to force the mortgage originators to buy back the
loans in question.  Since the dismissal was unanimous, Ambac
doesn't have an automatic right to appeal to the state's highest
court, though it can seek permission to do so.

Ambac counsel Peter Tomlinson -- pwtomlinson@pbwt.com -- of
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler didn't immediately respond to an
email request for comment. Sullivan & Cromwell's Sharon Nelles --
nelless@sullcrom.com -- who represents EMC and JPMorgan, declined
to comment.

The related fraud claims against the defendants, which New York
State Supreme Court judge Charles Ramos refused to toss last year,
remain pending.  The fraud claims weren't at issue in the appeal.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in "Kristensen" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit filed by Flemming
Kristensen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Enova International, Inc. said in an exhibit to Amendment No. 3 to
FORM 10 GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2014.

On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against the Company and other
unaffiliated lenders and lead providers.  The Company said, "The
lawsuit alleges that the lead provider defendants sent
unauthorized text messages to consumers on behalf of us and the
other lender defendants in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The complaint seeks class certification, statutory
damages, an injunction against "wireless spam activities," and
attorneys' fees and costs. We filed an answer to the complaint
denying all liability."

On March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification.
Discovery is ongoing.

"Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable ruling nor the ultimate
liability, if any, with respect to this matter can be determined
at this time, and we are currently unable to estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, for this
litigation. We believe that the plaintiff's claims in the
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit," the Company said.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Court Stayed "Burger" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court granted the joint motion to stay the class action
lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Burger, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Enova International, Inc. said in an exhibit
to Amendment No. 3 to FORM 10 GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF
SECURITIES filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 17, 2014.

On January 6, 2014, Elizabeth Burger, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
against the Company's subsidiary, CNU Online Holdings, LLC, the
Company's parent company, Cash America, and other unaffiliated
lenders. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
Company's credit service organization activities in Ohio violate
various laws in Ohio, including the Short-Term Loan Act, the
Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the General Usury Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of
actual damages, statutory damages not to exceed $5,000 for each
putative class member, an unspecified amount of punitive damages,
pre-judgment interest, a declaration that the Company's activities
violate the Short-Term Loan Act and the Consumer Sales Practices
Act, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 23, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the
litigation pending a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in the
case captioned Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Scott, which
will impact the issues alleged in the case. On January 28, 2014,
the court granted the joint motion to stay and stayed the
litigation pending a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court.

"Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable ruling nor the ultimate
liability, if any, with respect to this matter can be determined
at this time, and the Company is currently unable to estimate a
range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20,
Contingencies -- Loss Contingencies -- Glossary ("ASC 450-20-20"),
for this litigation. We believe that the plaintiff's claims in the
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit," the Company said.


EVERGREEN HELICOPTERS: Forum Non Conveniens Applied in Crash Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a state appeals court, hearing tort claims arising from a
fatal helicopter crash in Peru, has ruled for the first time that
judges in Oregon can use the doctrine of forum non conveniens to
decline jurisdiction in a case.

However, the Oregon Court of Appeals remanded the case after
finding that the trial judge had insufficient grounds to conclude
it could be litigated in Peru.

The claims involved eight Peruvian passengers who died in 2008
when their Bell 412 helicopter crashed into the side of a mountain
on the way to a mining site.  Their estates -- represented by
Slack & Davis of Austin, Podhurst Orseck of Miami and Landye
Bennett Blumstein of Portland, Ore. sued Evergreen Helicopters
Inc., the Oregon company that leased the helicopter and employed
the pilot, who also died, as did a co-pilot.

The suits, filed in Oregon state court, alleged that the
helicopter experienced problems following maintenance at
Evergreen's headquarters.

"The helicopter was worked on in Oregon, and it has a radar
altimeter that was installed in Oregon by Evergreen mechanics, and
the radar altimeter, which tells you how high you are off the
ground, wasn't working correctly," said Ladd Sanger, managing
partner of the Dallas office of Slack & Davis.

In 2010, Multnomah County, Ore., Circuit Court Judge Jerry Hodson
dismissed the actions, which had been consolidated into a single
case.

On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged Judge Hodson's application of
the forum non conveniens doctrine in dismissing the case.  But the
state appellate panel of three judges, acting on an issue of first
impression, agreed on Oct. 8 that the doctrine could be applied in
Oregon.

"We conclude that the inconvenient-forum doctrine is available,
such that an Oregon trial court may decline to exercise its
jurisdiction to try a case -- based on considerations of
convenience and justice -- when an adequate, alternative forum is
presently available in which to try the case," Judge Rex Armstrong
wrote.

But the panel also concluded that Judge Hodson had applied the
wrong federal precedent and lacked grounds to apply the doctrine
in this circumstance.

"Here, the trial court attempted to assess the convenience of the
respective forums based on what it believed the focus of the case
would be -- the circumstances in Peru at the time of the crash --
and where the witnesses and documents relevant to that focus were
located," Judge Armstrong wrote.

"However, in making that determination, the trial court appears to
have completely disregarded plaintiffs' claims based on
Evergreen's direct negligence as supported by witnesses and
documents located in the United States."

David Hosenpud -- hosenpudd@lanepowell.com -- a shareholder in the
Portland office of Seattle-based Lane Powell who represents
Evergreen, now owned by Erickson Air-Crane Inc. in Portland, did
not respond to a request for comment.  Erickson Air-Crane
spokeswoman Susan Bladholm declined to comment.


FACILITIES CONSULTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
German A. Centeno, Rubilio De Jesus Centeno and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Facilities Consulting
Group, Inc. and Edwin L. Mendenhall, Case No. 3:14-cv-03696 (N.D.
Tex., October 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Facilities Consulting Group, Inc. provides a complete range of
services for the offshore and onshore oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


FANNIE MAE: Court Tosses Bid to Admit Expert to Protective Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie
Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
(collectively the enterprises), have sued the United States,
claiming that it engaged in a taking of their property without
just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.  The case is, FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et
al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, NO. 13-465 C.

By way of background, after the national economy collapsed in
2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed the
enterprises into conservatorship. At the time, the United States
Department of the Treasury provided the enterprises with capital
and entered into agreements to purchase securities from them
(government stock). Plaintiffs allege that while serving as
conservator, defendant implemented the so-called "Net Worth Sweep"
for the government stock, which changed the dividend due on the
stock to defendant from 10% to 100% of all current and future
profits, directing all such profits to the Treasury, rather than
to plaintiffs. Defendant responded to the complaint by filing a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to
state a claim. Defendant contends that the court lacks
jurisdiction because the enterprises are independent entities and
not controlled by the federal government, that plaintiffs' claims
are not ripe, and that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
a regulatory taking. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for discovery
in aid of jurisdiction, which the court granted. Because of the
sensitive nature of the information responsive to plaintiffs'
discovery requests, on August 8, 2014, the court entered a
protective order to safeguard that material.
Now pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to admit
one of its experts to the protective order. Defendant filed an
opposition to the admission and plaintiffs submitted a reply.

Because serious injury could flow from the intentional or
inadvertent disclosure of the sensitive material that is the
subject of the protective order, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the
United States Court of Federal Claims denied the plaintiffs'
motion in an opinion and order dated October 15, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/hURT04from Leagle.com.

USA, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Michael Dintzer, U. S.
Department of Justice - Civil Div.


GARLOCK SEALING: Judge Unseals Evidence in Asbestos Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that after a protracted fight, a federal judge has ruled
on Oct. 16 that all of the evidence that led him to find
misrepresentations by plaintiffs in an asbestos-related bankruptcy
must be unsealed.

When U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District
of North Carolina estimated the liability of Garlock Sealing
Technologies, LLC, in January, he found that Garlock likely owes
$125 million to asbestos plaintiffs.  At that time, he rejected
the plaintiffs' argument that Garlock's liability is around $1
billion to $1.3 billion after finding that there was evidence of
misrepresentation by plaintiffs' lawyers in several cases that
Garlock settled in the past or in which Garlock lost jury
verdicts.

The judge in January found that some plaintiffs alleged they were
exposed to asbestos from different sources in civil court than
when they submitted claims to the trusts formed after companies
went through bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liability.

During a hearing on Oct. 16, Judge Hodges ruled from the bench
that the only information that should be redacted are social
security numbers, birth dates, financial account numbers, names of
minors and medical information except for diseases related to
asbestos.  The judge said he also should not have closed some of
the proceedings in January.

The judge said that the First Amendment applies to the records
even though the estimation proceeding wasn't a final adjudication
of what Garlock owes to claimants who allege their exposure to
Garlock's products caused them mesothelioma cancer.

"It should have been public," Judge Hodges said.  "This is the
type of proceeding that would have been historically open.  Public
access would have served a positive role in the functioning of the
court by enabling the public to evaluate the court's decision
based on all of the evidence rather than on simply part of it."

Judge Hodges overruled Garlock's assertion of attorney-product
privilege or attorney work-product privilege to keep sealed major
expense authorizations forms documenting the approval of
settlement decisions and the mental impressions and opinions of
in-house and trial counsel.  Judge Hodges also unsealed Garlock's
trial evaluation forms with outside counsel's trial plans and
assessment of cases

U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of the Western District of
North Carolina in July reversed Hodges' decision to seal the
evidence that led to his estimation of Garlock's liability.  Judge
Cogburn remanded the case for the lower court to conduct fact-
finding about the public's right of access under common law or the
First Amendment.

Asbestos claimants and their law firms, as well as the official
committee of asbestos personal injury claimants, moved to seal
questionnaires filled out by plaintiffs, information claimants
submitted to the trusts formed out of the bankruptcies of other
asbestos defendants, and evidence referencing settlements by
asbestos claimants, among other information.

The documents were not unsealed immediately because they must
still be redacted.


GENERAL MOTORS: Nov. 6 Hearing in Ignition-Switch Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers leading the fight against General Motors
Co. over its ignition-switch recalls have filed two consolidated
class actions on behalf of 30 million consumers across the
country.

The complaints, filed on Oct. 14 in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, allege GM lied about the safety of
its cars and trucks, both before and after it emerged from
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009.  GM's record number of recalls this
year for safety defects -- not just those associated with an
ignition switch -- have caused all its vehicles to diminish in
value, according to the complaints.

"You see an initial diminution in value after the February recalls
that pretty much affect just the ignition-switch cars; and then by
March, and particularly by June, we begin to see all GM vehicles
are taking a hit, and the hit has been getting worse over time,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the cases.  "By
September, the diminution of value has been increasing."
GM spokesman James Cain declined to comment.

Both complaints assert claims under the U.S. Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and
breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Michigan law.
They also allege violations of dozens of state consumer and fraud
statutes.  They seek to represent a nationwide class and
subclasses in all 50 states against GM as the sole defendant.

Both cite advertisements and brochures touting the safety of GM's
vehicles while listing recalls related to the ignition switch as
well as other safety problems, including those affecting airbags,
seat belts, brakes and steering.

One complaint, which is 712 pages long, seeks to represent
consumers who purchased or leased their GM cars and trucks between
July 11, 2009 -- when today's GM acquired old GM's bankruptcy
assets -- and July 3, 2014.  The second complaint, 869 pages long,
seeks to represent consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles
before July 11, 2009.  GM has moved to bar those claims, as well
as consumer actions over recalls not pertaining to the ignition
switch defect, in U.S. bankruptcy court.

The next hearing in the litigation is Nov. 6.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Cross-Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a Boston federal judge has ruled that GlaxoSmithKline PLC's $3
billion settlement of misbranding charges involving its diabetes
drug Avandia and other pharmaceuticals did not resolve claims the
Cherokee Nation filed in its Oklahoma tribal court.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani held that the agreement's
reference to purchases made by the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs program did not include purchases by the Indian Health
Service.  She allowed the Cherokee Nation's cross-motion for
summary judgment and denied Glaxo's renewed cross-motion for
summary judgment.

Glaxo's 2012 settlement with the federal government resolved
criminal charges and civil complaints concerning Avandia and the
drugs Paxil and Wellbutrin.  The charges included off-label
promotion, kickbacks and failure to report data to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

In August 2013, the Cherokee Nation and its attorney general,
Todd Hembree, filed a third amended petition against Glaxo in the
tribal court seeking damages for the company's allegedly "illegal
marketing, sale and promotion" of Avandia.

That November, Glaxo filed suit in the District of Massachusetts
seeking a declaration that the settlement at least partially
released those claims and that Cherokee courts lacked
jurisdiction.

Although not a named party in the case, the federal government
filed a statement of interest arguing that its settlement had not
released the tribal claims.

Talwani on Oct. 15 agreed that the Cherokee Nation was not a party
to the deal.  A "longstanding understanding" of Indian tribes'
sovereignty, including in U.S. Supreme Court case law, bolstered
this conclusion, she wrote.

"Because there is no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity in the
settlement agreement . . . and because there is no indication that
Congress statutorily waived the Cherokee Nation's sovereign
immunity . . . the settlement agreement's reference to the
department of Health and Human Services as a party to the
agreement did not waive the Cherokee Nation's sovereign immunity
or make the Cherokee Nation a party to the settlement agreement,"
she said.

Mark Lynch, who co-chairs the pharmaceutical litigation and
government-investigations group at Washington's Covington &
Burling, is Glaxo's lead lawyer on the matter.  He referred
questions to the company.

In an emailed statement, Glaxo spokeswoman Heidi Siegel said the
company "is disappointed with the district court's decision, as we
believe these claims were resolved by prior settlement; however,
we are prepared to defend the litigation moving forward."

The Cherokee Nation's lawyers did not respond to requests for
comment.  They are Paula Bliss, a Boston partner at Bubalo Goode
Sales & Bliss, and Curtis Bruehl of the Sill Law Group in Edmond,
Okla.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bonelli" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Bonelli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corp. and John and Jane
Does Numbers 1 through 25, Case No. 1:14-cv-08233 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 15, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive,
misleading, and other illegal practices to collect alleged debts
from the Plaintiff and others.

Global Credit & Collection Corp. collects and attempts to collect
debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal,
family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the
United States Postal Services, telephone and Internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
      GUS M. FARINELLA, LAW OFFICES
      180 West 20th Street, Suite 12 B
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (212) 675-6161
      Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
      E-mail: rlgentile82@gmail.com


GS YUASA: IPPs in Antitrust Suit Allowed to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, approved a
stipulation allowing the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs in the
lithium ion batteries antitrust litigation to file an amended
complaint limited to (i) the addition of the Hawaii claim and the
plaintiff described in IPPs' Statement of Compliance Re
Administrative Termination; (ii) the removal of the named
plaintiffs; and (iii) the amendments permitted by the Court's
Omnibus Order re: Motions to Dismiss the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaints of Direct and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs.

The case is In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation. This
Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, CASE NO. 13-MD-02420-YGR (N.D.
Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Rogers' Order dated Oct. 17,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/FhT9V8from Leagle.com.

Counsel for GS Yuasa Corporation:

         Douglas M. Garrou, Esq.
         HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
         Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
         951 East Byrd Street
         Richmond, VI 23219
         Tel: (804) 788-8355
         Fax: (804) 343-4524
         Email: dgarrou@hunton.com

            - and -

         Djordje Petkoski, Esq.
         Robert A. Caplen, Esq.
         HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
         2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC  20037
         Tel: (202) 955-1500
         Fax: (202) 778-2201
         Email: dpetkoski@hunton.com
                rcaplen@hunton.com


GT ADVANCED: Faces "Boccabella" Suit Over Deceptive Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Boccabella, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal,
and Richard J. Gaynor, Case No. 1:14-cv-00457 (D.N.H., October 15,
2014), made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to GTAT's relationship with Apple, as well as GTAT's
capital position.

GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a leading diversified technology
company producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth
equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics,
solar and LED industries.

The Individual Defendants are officers of GT Advanced Technologies
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Mallory, Esq.
      MALLORY & FRIEDMAN PLLC
      3 North Spring St, Ste 201
      Concord, NH 03302
      Telephone: (603) 228-2277
      E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com

         - and -

      Lester L. Levy, Esq.
      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      Roy Herrera Jr., Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 486-2093

         - and -

      James V. Bashian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN, P.C.
      500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
      New York, NY 10110
      Telephone: (212) 921-4110
      Facsimile: (212) 921-4249


IEC ELECTRONICS: Receives Insurance Settlement
----------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp. (NYSE MKT: IEC) announced that it has
resolved certain directors and officers liability insurance claims
for legal expenses incurred through June 30, 2014. On October 10,
2014 the Company received an additional $1.3 million from its
primary insurance carrier in partial reimbursement for expenses
incurred in connection with the consolidated shareholder class
action (recently dismissed) and SEC investigation. The Company and
its primary carrier have also agreed to the scope of coverage for
certain legal expenses incurred after June 30, 2014. Reimbursement
for future expenses will vary with the circumstances under which
such expenses are incurred and their respective amounts.

IEC Electronics Corporation is a provider of electronic
manufacturing services ("EMS") to advanced technology companies
primarily in the aerospace and defense, medical, industrial and
communications sectors.


INTERMOUNTAIN COMMUNITY: Facing Class Action Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intermountain Community Bancorp ("Intermountain") and Columbia
Banking System, Inc. ("Columbia") announced on July 23, 2014, that
they had entered into a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger
Agreement"), pursuant to which Intermountain will merge with and
into Columbia (the "Merger") subject to, among other things, a
vote of Intermountain shareholders.

On August 22, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against Intermountain, Columbia and certain other
defendants in connection with the Merger Agreement. The class
action complaint, entitled Kahn v. Elsaesser, et al., Case No.
CV2014-01452 (the "Action"), was filed in District Court of the
First Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonner County.
As described in greater detail in the Proxy Statement of
Intermountain filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") on September 23, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement"), the
Action alleges that Intermountain's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Intermountain and its shareholders in
connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement. The Action also alleges that the disclosures in
connection with the Merger are inadequate in various respects.

Intermountain, its directors and Columbia continue to believe that
the Action is without merit, have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, all of the allegations of wrongful or
actionable conduct asserted in the Action, and Intermountain, its
directors and Columbia vigorously maintain that Intermountain's
directors have diligently and scrupulously complied with all
applicable fiduciary duties, that the Proxy Statement is complete
and accurate in all material respects and that no further
disclosure is required under applicable law.

Purely out of an abundance of caution, and in order to minimize
the costs, risks, burden, expense and distraction of litigation,
Intermountain made supplemental disclosures to be read together
with the Proxy Statement, Intermountain said in a Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 17, 2014.

The supplemental disclosure does not affect the timing of the
special meeting of Intermountain's shareholders, scheduled for
October 27, 2014 in Sandpoint, Idaho, to vote upon a proposal to
approve the Merger Agreement, among other things.


IRAN: Judge Awards $622 Million to U.S. Embassy Bombing Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Beck and Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that a
federal judge in Washington on Oct. 15 awarded $622 million to
victims of the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, resolving the last remaining claims against the
governments of Iran and Sudan for their role in the attack.

U.S. District Judge John Bates has handed down billions of dollars
in damages awards in recent years to victims of the 1998 bombings
at the embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
which killed hundreds and injured thousands.  In July, he awarded
$8 billion to victims of the attacks and their families, both U.S.
citizens and foreign nationals.

In the Oct. 15 ruling, Bates wrote that although the court's role
in determining liability and damages for the 1998 attacks was
over, "the story is hardly over for the victims of these attacks,
who not only must continue the effort to actually recover their
awarded damages, but, more importantly, must also continue to live
with the devastating consequences of these callous acts."
Judge Bates wrote.

That, after all, is the design of such terrorist activity -- to
inflict present and future fear and pain on individuals and
governments.  The court commends the dedicated, creative, and
courageous resolve of all plaintiffs -- and their conscientious
attorneys -- in the cases brought against the terrorists
responsible for the embassy bombings and their supporters.  They
have helped to ensure that terrorism, and its support by
defendants, will not ultimately succeed in achieving its long-term
goals.

Judges in the D.C. federal district court have awarded more than
$20 billion in damages against Iran in state-sponsored terrorism
cases since 2008, according to reporting by The National Law
Journal.  Earlier last week, one of Judge Bates' colleagues
awarded $453 million in damages to victims of the 1983 bombing of
U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

U.S. District Senior Judge Royce Lamberth signed off on the award
Tuesday after ruling in 2013 that Iran aided the terrorists
responsible for the bombing.  A truck strapped with about 2,000
pounds of explosives evaded a sentry post and ignited outside the
barracks on Oct. 23, 1983, killing 241 service members and
wounding many others.

"This dastardly attack on service members who were deployed as
peacekeepers is the largest incidence of state-sponsored terrorism
against the United States prior to 9/11," Joseph Peter Drennan,
lead attorney for the plaintiffs said on Oct. 15.

The D.C. federal trial court has awarded more than $9 billion to
Beirut bombing victims and their families after ruling in 2003
that Iran was liable under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
for supporting terrorists behind the attack, Mr. Drennan said.

Mr. Drennan said plaintiffs in the case Lamberth ruled on Tuesday
will split $1.75 billion in frozen Iranian assets held in New York
bank accounts with plaintiffs from similar terrorism rulings
against Iran.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in July ruled in
favor of victims in state-sponsored terrorism cases claiming those
assets. Iran's state-run Bank Markazi plans to challenge the
ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Plaintiffs in the Oct. 14 case
will receive about $25 million from the New York funds, according
to Mr. Drennan.  The rest will be sought in future collection
efforts.

"I think the way to deal with state-sponsored terrorism is to make
it such an expensive proposition that the cost will outweigh the
benefits," Mr. Drennan said.

Judge Lamberth appointed a special master to filter through
damages claims.  The court awarded victims and their families $102
million in compensatory damages and $351 million in punitive
damages.

"The court concludes that defendant Iran must be punished to the
fullest extent legally possible for the bombing in Beirut," Judge
Lamberth wrote in his ruling on Oct. 14.  "This horrific act
harmed countless individuals and their families, a number of whom
receive awards in this lawsuit."

The court awarded as much as $12 million to victims who suffered
severe physical or psychological injuries.  The court also denied
damages to the estranged father of a bombing victim named in the
case, according to court papers.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Files Answer in Koetsch and MLAF Litigations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services Inc. filed its answer to the second
amended complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims in the
Koetsch Litigation and MLAF Litigation, the Company said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 16, 2014, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the caption: William Koetsch,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch Litigation"). On
April 17, 2013, a second complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption: Massachusetts Laborers'
Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "MLAF
Litigation")."

"On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation
and MLAF Litigation under the caption: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities
Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters National
Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs.

"On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the
Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended
complaint was filed in the Securities Litigation. The second
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

   * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, 2009 RSA
and PEAKS Program;

    * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

    * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading;

    * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

    * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our
common stock;

    * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs
and the purported class, regarding, among other things, our
artificially inflated statements of financial strength and
understated liabilities; and

    * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members
to purchase our common stock at inflated prices."

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

"On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of our motion to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014, we filed our
answer to the second amended complaint denying all of the
plaintiffs' claims," the Company said.  "All of the defendants
have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the second amended
complaint."

ITT Educational Services, Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
degree programs in the United States.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Banes" Litigation in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed on September 30, 2014,
against the Company and two of its current executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana under the caption: David Banes, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the
"Banes Litigation").

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

   * misleading investors regarding the integrity of our financial
reporting, including the reporting of the PEAKS Trust;

   * knowingly or recklessly making materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose material adverse
facts about our business operations and prospects, including that:

   * our financial statements contained errors related to the
accounting of the PEAKS Trust and the PEAKS Program; and

   * we lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting;

   * knowingly or recklessly engaging in acts, transactions,
practices, and courses of business that operated as a fraud or
deceit upon the plaintiff and the purported class;

   * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of our common stock;

   * deceiving the investing public, including the plaintiff and
the purported class; and

   * artificially inflating and maintaining the market price of
our common stock and causing the plaintiff and other putative
class members to purchase our common stock at artificially
inflated prices."

The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013
through September 19, 2014. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified damages, interest, costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court
deems proper. All of the defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the complaint.

ITT Educational Services, Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
degree programs in the United States.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Tarapara" Litigation in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed on October 3, 2014,
against the Company and two of its current executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana under the caption: Babulal Tarapara, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational
Services, Inc., et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by knowingly or recklessly making false and/or
misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse
facts about our business, operations, prospects and financial
results.

According to the Company, "in particular, the complaint alleges
that:

   * we failed to consolidate the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated
financial statements;

   * our consolidated financial statements contained errors
related to the accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program;

   * we improperly accounted for our guarantee obligations under
the PEAKS Guarantee;

   * our financial results were overstated;

   * we lacked adequate internal and financial controls;

   * our consolidated financial statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times;

   * we artificially inflated and maintained the market price of
our common stock, causing the plaintiff and other putative class
members to purchase our common stock at artificially inflated
prices;

   * we deceived the investing public, including the plaintiff and
the purported class; and

   * we employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of our common stock.
The putative class period in this action is from February 26, 2013
through September 18, 2014. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things:

   * the designation of this action as a class action;

   * an award of unspecified compensatory damages, including
interest;

   * an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel
fees and expert fees; and

   * such other relief as the court deems proper."

All of the defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously
against the allegations made in the complaint.

ITT Educational Services, Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
degree programs in the United States.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Jindal" Litigation in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed on October 9, 2014,
against the Company and two of its current executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana under the caption: Kumud Jindal, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al.
(the "Jindal Litigation").

The Company said, "The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or
recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and failing
to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations,
prospects and financial results. In particular, the complaint
alleges that:

   * our financial statements contained errors related to the
accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program;

   * we lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting;

   * our financial statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times;

   * we engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of
business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon plaintiff and
the purported class;

   * we employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in
connection with the purchase and sale of our common stock; and

   * we artificially inflated and maintained the market price of
our common stock, causing the plaintiff and other putative class
members to purchase our common stock at artificially inflated
prices."

The putative class period in this action is from April 26, 2013
through September 19, 2014. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. All
of the defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against
the allegations made in the complaint.

ITT Educational Services, Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
degree programs in the United States.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Gallien" Litigation in Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that a complaint was
filed on December 17, 2013, against the Company in a purported
class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles under the following caption: La Sondra
Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni
Chilin, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
et al.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
February 13, 2014. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that under California law, we:

   * failed to pay wages owed;

   * failed to pay overtime compensation;

   * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

   * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

   * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

   * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act."

The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by the Company during the period of December 17, 2009 through
December 17, 2013. The amended complaint seeks:

   * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses;

   * general damages;

   * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

   * restitution;

   * liquidated damages;

   * statutory penalties;

   * interest;

   * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

   * civil and statutory penalties;

   * injunctive relief; and

   * such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable
and appropriate.

"We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint,"
the Company said.

ITT Educational Services, Inc. is a provider of postsecondary
degree programs in the United States.


JOS. A. BANK: Allows "Lucas" Plaintiffs to Amend Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 2014, David M. Lucas and Eric L. Salerno filed a
putative class action complaint against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc. asserting three claims under the California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et
seq., and one claim under California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), Cal. Civil Code Sections 1750 et seq.  The Defendant
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.  On
October 9, 2014, the parties filed a joint motion to allow the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the parties' joint motion for leave
to amend after determining that the request is not driven by bad
faith or with the intent to cause undue delay or prejudice to the
Defendant.  Judge Burns denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
as moot.

The case is DAVID M. LUCAS and ERIC L. SALERNO, Plaintiffs, v.
JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-1631-LAB
(JLB)(S.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Burns' Order dated
Oct. 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/xWUUuCfrom
Leagle.com.

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., Defendant, is represented by:

         James F Speyer, Esq.
         ARNOLD AND PORTER LLP
         44th Floor
         777 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
         Tel: (213) 243-4000
         Fax: (213) 243-4199
         Email: James.Speyer@aporter.com

Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., operates a national chain of retail
clothing stores.


JP MORGAN: Bid to Dismiss W&S Companies' Suit Partially Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, Western-Southern
Life Assurance Company, Columbus Life Insurance Company, Integrity
Life Insurance Company, National Integrity Life Insurance Company,
and Fort Washington Investment Advisors, Inc. on behalf of Fort
Washington Active Fixed Income LLC, filed a civil action against
Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Mortgage
Acquisition Corporation, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P.
Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, along with Defendants Washington
Mutual Mortgage Securities Corporation, WaMu Asset Acceptance
Corporation, and WaMu Capital Corporation.

The W&S Plaintiffs allege generally that the Defendants "engaged
in a pattern of corrupt activity whereby they sought illegally to
profit from the origination, securitization, and servicing of
mortgage loans, and the sale of residential mortgage-backed
securities."  The W&S Plaintiffs purchased $202 million of RMBS
certificates from JPM Defendants and WaMu Defendants between
October 5, 2005 and October 10, 2007 in ten securitization
transactions.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint, saying the claims are barred by limitations periods and
the complaint failed to state claims upon which relief can be
granted.

Judge Susan J. Dlott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, in an order dated Oct. 16,
2014, granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss,
after finding that the majority of claims asserted have been
sufficiently pleaded to continue to discovery.

The case is The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-495 (S.D. Ohio.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Dlott's Decision is available at http://is.gd/gXfnHofrom
Leagle.com.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, ThirdParty Defendant, is
represented by Daniel H Kurtenbach, Duncan Stevens, Kaye Allison,
and Thomas Holzman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and
Scott H Christensen, Esq. -- scott.christensen@hugheshubbard.com
-- at Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, in Washington, D.C.


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Faces Class Action Over Misrepresentations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Southern said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a putative
securities class action lawsuit was filed on April 15, 2014, in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors. The securities class action is styled as
Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345-BCW.

On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative actions
purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is named as a
"nominal defendant") was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri against certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers. The first
derivative action is styled as Webster v. Starling, et al., 4:14-
cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action was filed on June 6,
2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00509-
BCW.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company made
misrepresentations or omitted to disclose certain facts in
connection with its volume guidance for fiscal year 2013. The
complaints seek unspecified damages and equitable relief. While
the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted with certainty,
the Company does not believe that, when resolved, these disputes
will have a material effect on its consolidated financial
statements. However, an adverse resolution could have a material
effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.


KEITH SCHAEFER: Bid to Junk SORTS Residents' Suit Partially OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several individuals who are, or were, civilly committed residents
of the Missouri Department of Mental Health's Sexual Offender
Rehabilitation and Treatment Services facilities in Farmington and
Fulton, Missouri, commenced a putative class action asserting
numerous violations of the United States and Missouri
constitutions based on the alleged lack of adequate care and
treatment provided to them.  They also challenge the
constitutionality of Missouri's statutory scheme that provides for
reimbursement from the Plaintiffs and/or their families or estates
for the costs of the Plaintiffs' care and treatment.  The
Defendants are state officials responsible for various aspects of
SORTS, all sued solely in their official capacities.  The
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

In a memorandum and order dated Oct. 17, 2014, Judge Audrey G.
Fleissig of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.

Specifically, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fifth
Amended Complaint are denied with respect to the Plaintiffs'
substantive due process claim based on lack of adequate care and
treatment, the Plaintiffs' substantive due process and equal
protection claims based on Missouri's statutory reimbursement
scheme, and the Plaintiffs' alternative disability discrimination
claim under the ADA; the motions are granted as to all other
aspects of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint.

The case is JOHN VAN ORDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KEITH SCHAEFER,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:09CV00971 AGF (E.D. Mo.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Fleissig's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/i3nYikfrom Leagle.com.

George Lombardi, in his official capacity as the Director of the
Missouri Department of Corrections, Defendant, is represented by:

         Katherine S. Walsh, Esq.
         Philip Sholtz, Esq.
         Mary Delworth Morris, Esq.
         ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI


KIMBERLY BUTLER: Ill. Inmates Allowed to Amend Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois issued a memorandum and order dated
Oct. 16, 2014, dismissing, without prejudice, a putative class
action alleging deprivation of constitutional rights of several
inmates in Menard Correctional Center.  Judge Rosenstengel
directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before
Nov. 10, 2014, the failure of which will result in the dismissal
of the complaint and action with prejudice.

The case is DAVID ROBERT BENTZ, BRETT SHARP, JESSE PEREZ, MARCOS
GARCIA, ARMANDO GALLANDO, and JOHN LEE, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY
BUTLER, NURSE LANG, MAJOR WESTFALL, LT. JAMES BEST, LT. EOVALDI,
LT. SAMUELS, SGT. N. BEBOUT, SGT. C. MAYER, C/O JOSHUA BERNER, C/O
SHANE QUANDT, C/O JASON REDNOUR, C/O DONALD LINDENBERG, C/O JARED
PHILLIPS, C/O McMILLAN, and UNKNOWN PARTIES, Defendants, CASE NO.
14-CV-00996-NJR (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Rosenstengel's Decision is available at http://is.gd/uC88qwfrom
Leagle.com.

John Lee, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


LIFE PARTNERS: Court Stayed Proceedings in "Stone" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court ordered all proceedings in the case, Selma Stone, et al.
v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden,
and David M. Martin, until a ruling is issued in the SEC case,
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Life Partners Holdings,
Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden and David M. Martin, Civil
Action No.: 6:12-CV-00002, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 15, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2014.

In February and March of 2011, six putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Waco Division. On July 5, 2011, these
actions were consolidated into the case styled Selma Stone, et al.
v. Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, R. Scott Peden,
and David M. Martin, Civil Action No. DR-11-CV-16-AM in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio
Division. Plaintiffs assert substantially similar, and at times
identical, facts and allegations to those asserted by the SEC in
its complaint in the SEC action and seek damages and an award of
costs on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between May 26,
2006, and June 17, 2011.

On March 26, 2012, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
amended complaint which the court denied on March 15, 2014. On
September 15, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay all
proceedings in this case until the Court issues a ruling on the
SEC's motion for judgment in Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Life Partners Holdings, Inc., et al. The Court granted the motion
on September 17, 2014 and ordered all proceedings in this case
stayed until a ruling is issued in the SEC case. The Court further
ordered that, within the 45-day period following the entry of a
judgment in the SEC Action, the Plaintiffs shall either 1) file a
motion to dismiss this action, or 2) file a motion for class
certification.

Life Partners Holdings, Inc. is a specialty financial services
company and the parent company of Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI"). LPI
is the oldest and one of the most active companies in the United
States engaged in the secondary market for life insurance known
generally as "life settlements". LPI facilitates the sale of life
settlements between sellers and purchasers, but does not take
possession or control of the policies. The purchasers acquire the
life insurance policies at a discount to their face value for
investment purposes.


LIFE PARTNERS: 5th Dist Court Rejects Appeal on Class Designation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Partners, Inc., appealed the designation of the class in the
case, Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., but the appeal was
recently rejected by the Fifth District Court of Appeals, Dallas,
Texas, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2014.

On March 11, 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, styled
Helen Z. McDermott, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No. 11-02966. The
original petition asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative
class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased
any portion of a life settlement that matured earlier than the
estimated maximum life expectancy.

Pursuant to three amendments to the Petition, the plaintiff
revised the putative class of persons on whose behalf the
plaintiff seeks to represent to be limited to all persons residing
in the United States who purchased any portion of one particular
life settlement. The plaintiff seeks as purported damages the
amount of funds placed in escrow for policy maintenance that was
allegedly not needed or used for policy maintenance and was not
returned or paid to the plaintiff or the putative class members as
well as attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff also seeks
certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief,
restitution, and disgorgement.

Following briefing by the parties and a hearing before the court,
the court certified a class consisting of 38 persons residing in
the United States that purchased any portion of a life settlement
interest in the designated policy.  LPI appealed the designation
of the class, but the appeal was recently rejected by the Fifth
District Court of Appeals, Dallas, Texas. The case will eventually
be returned to the 191st District Court for further proceedings.

Life Partners Holdings, Inc. is a specialty financial services
company and the parent company of Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI"). LPI
is the oldest and one of the most active companies in the United
States engaged in the secondary market for life insurance known
generally as "life settlements". LPI facilitates the sale of life
settlements between sellers and purchasers, but does not take
possession or control of the policies. The purchasers acquire the
life insurance policies at a discount to their face value for
investment purposes.


LIFE PARTNERS: Fifth Court of Appeals Stayed Bellwether Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifth Court of Appeals issued an order staying the bellwether
trial which had been set for September 29, 2014 until further
order of the Court, Life Partners Holdings, Inc., said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 15, 2014, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2014.

On April 8, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the 40th Judicial District Court of Ellis County, Texas, styled
John Willingham, individually and on behalf of all other Texas
citizens similarly situated, v. Life Partners, Inc., Cause No.
82640 (MR). On July 27, 2011, by agreement of the parties, the
Willingham case was transferred to the 101st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County under Cause No. DC-11-10639. All of the
plaintiff's claims are based upon the alleged overpayment of
premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to
engage in "premium optimization" on behalf of all Texas residents
that purchased an interest in a life settlement facilitated by
LPI.

On March 15, 2013, the plaintiff filed his fourth amended petition
in which eight new named-plaintiffs were added to the suit, and
the Company, Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott Peden were added as
defendants.  In addition to the putative class claims concerning
the alleged overpayment of premiums, the amended petition asserts
individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty against LPI arising
from the alleged overpayment of premiums and the alleged use of
underestimated life expectancies provided by Dr. Donald Cassidy,
as well as aiding and abetting claims against the Company, Pardo
and Peden.

On January 22, 2013, a petition was filed in the 162nd Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas, styled Stephen Eccles, et al
vs. Life Partners, Inc., Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D.
Pardo and R. Scott Peden on behalf of 23 individuals, all of whom
were represented by the same counsel for the plaintiff in the
Willingham case.

On March 20, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate
the Eccles case with the Willingham case, which was granted on
March 25, 2013.

On April 15, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their fifth amended
petition dropping all putative class claims and asserting
individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud,
civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and
common law fraud, and negligence against us, LPI, Pardo and Peden.
The plaintiff seeks economic and exemplary damages, disgorgement
and/or fee forfeiture, attorneys' fees and costs, and post and
pre-judgment interest.

On April 9, 2013, an original petition was filed in the 352nd
Judicial District Court, Tarrant County, Texas, styled Todd
McClain, et al v. Life Partners, Inc., Life Partners Holdings,
Inc., Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott Peden. This suit is virtually
identical to the Willingham case.

On May 15, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the
McClain and Willingham cases to a Multi-District Litigation Panel
for the purposes of transferring and consolidating the Willingham
case and the McClain case to a single forum for pretrial purposes.
On August 16, 2013, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel issued an
opinion granting the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2013,
the Panel issued an Order transferring the McClain case to Judge
Slaughter of the 191st District Court of Dallas County and
consolidating the McClain case (and any tag along cases
subsequently filed) with the Willingham case.

The consolidated MDL case is styled In re Life Partners, Inc.
Litigation (the "MDL Proceedings"). In the MDL Proceedings, all of
plaintiffs' claims are based upon the alleged failure to engage in
"premium optimization," as well as the alleged provision of
underestimated life expectancies by Dr. Donald Cassidy to LPI and
LPI's use in the facilitation of life settlement transactions in
which plaintiffs acquired interests in life insurance policies.
Plaintiffs seek economic and exemplary damages, disgorgement
and/or fee forfeiture, attorneys' fees and costs, and post and
pre-judgment interest.

On August 9, 2013, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a
bellwether trial consisting of ten plaintiffs, five selected by
plaintiffs and five selected by defendants, with the remaining
plaintiffs trying their claims in groups of 16 approximately 90
days after the conclusion of each trial.

On September 10, 2014, Defendants filed a Writ of Mandamus with
the Fifth Court of Appeals concerning the issue of whether the
Court abused its discretion by not excluding certain expert
witnesses. On September 12, 2014, the Fifth Court of Appeals
issued an order staying the bellwether trial which had been set
for September 29, 2014 until further order of the Court.

Life Partners Holdings, Inc. is a specialty financial services
company and the parent company of Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI"). LPI
is the oldest and one of the most active companies in the United
States engaged in the secondary market for life insurance known
generally as "life settlements". LPI facilitates the sale of life
settlements between sellers and purchasers, but does not take
possession or control of the policies. The purchasers acquire the
life insurance policies at a discount to their face value for
investment purposes.


LIFE PARTNERS: No Trial Date Set in "Steuben" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Another joint status update was due October 16, 2014, and no trial
date has been set in the case Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of
herself and all other California citizens similarly situated v.
Life Partners, Inc., Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles Court, Case No. BC472953, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 15, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended August 31, 2014.

On November 8, 2011, a putative class action suit was filed,
styled Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of herself and all other
California citizens similarly situated v. Life Partners, Inc.,
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles Court, Case No. BC472953. This suit asserts claims of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violations of California's
Unfair Competition law based upon the alleged overpayment of
premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to
engage in "premium optimization."

On December 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their motion to
intervene in the case styled Turnbow et al. v. Life Partners,
Inc., Life Partners Holdings, Inc., Brian D. Pardo, and R. Scott
Peden, Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-1030-M, whereby the plaintiffs
sought to join the putative Turnbow class and subclass and to
create a new subclass asserting claims for damages related to the
defendants' alleged overpayment of premiums.

The Federal District Judge in the Turnbow case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to intervene on February 5, 2013 and the
Turnbow case was voluntarily dismissed in December 2013.

On June 5, 2014, the parties filed a joint status report with the
court, and the court continued to stay the case pending resolution
of the case styled John Willingham, individually and on behalf of
all other Texas citizens similarly situated, v. Life Partners,
Inc., Cause No. 82640 (MR).

Another joint status update was due October 16, 2014. No trial
date has been set.

Life Partners Holdings, Inc. is a specialty financial services
company and the parent company of Life Partners, Inc. ("LPI"). LPI
is the oldest and one of the most active companies in the United
States engaged in the secondary market for life insurance known
generally as "life settlements". LPI facilitates the sale of life
settlements between sellers and purchasers, but does not take
possession or control of the policies. The purchasers acquire the
life insurance policies at a discount to their face value for
investment purposes.


LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Suit Over "Search for References" Function
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that LinkedIn faces
claims that it violates a federal consumer protection law by
providing reference reports about potential employees to paid
subscribers.

On Oct. 7, plaintiffs lawyers filed a proposed class action in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of anyone in the U.S. who's had a reference report run on
them through LinkedIn's "search for references" function in the
past two years.

According to the suit, LinkedIn can mine the information provided
by users of its professional networking website to find potential
references for job applicants without the applicants' knowledge.
Searches yield a list of the names and current job titles for
potential references, along with the common employer they share
with the applicant and time worked together.

The complaint claims that these reference lists amount to a
consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and that
LinkedIn fails to abide by safeguards required under the law.
"In essence, LinkedIn has created a marketplace in consumer
employment information, where it sells employment information,
that may or may not be accurate, and that it has obtained in part
from unwitting members, and without complying with the FCRA,"
write the plaintiffs lawyers at Greenwald Davidson in Boca Raton,
Fla., and the Law Offices Todd Friedman in Beverly Hills.

Plaintiffs are asking for statutory damages for willful violation
of the FCRA, which run from $100 to $1,000 per violation.

Plaintiffs are also seeking to certify a subclass of LinkedIn
members who've applied for a job via the website and had reference
reports run on them by potential employers.

Greenwald Davidson's James Davidson said in a phone interview on
Oct. 10 that he was unsure of how large the class and subclass
might be, in part, because LinkedIn users are unaware of when
someone has run a reference report.

Although the FCRA generally applies to the big three credit
reporting agencies -- Experian, TransUnion and Equifax -- Davidson
says the definition of consumer report and credit reporting agency
under the law are broad.  "Our view of the case and the facts are
that the content of the report and the way that LinkedIn markets
it clearly [violate the law]," he said.

A spokesman for LinkedIn declined to comment.


LMKS LLC: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Lewis, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. LMKS, LLC d/b/a/ Hunt Nissan & Kenneth Hunt, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00300 (E.D. Tenn., October 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime pay for hours
worked over 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a new and used car dealership and
service center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua R. Ward, Esq.
      MASSEY & ASSOCIATES, PC
      1024 M.L. King Blvd
      Chattanooga, TN 37403
      Telephone: (423) 697-4529
      E-mail: josh@masseyattorneys.com


LOOKS GREAT: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renato Ayala, Blas Gutierez, Leonel Jimenez and Miguel Serrano,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated v. Looks Great Services, Inc., Kristian Todd Agoglia, and
John and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-06035 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 15, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a property maintenance company that
provides tree care management, landscape maintenance, and
Christmas light decorating services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John V. Golaszewski, Esq.
      SCHILLER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      130 West 42nd Street, Suite 1002
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 768-8700
      Facsimile: (866) 326-1548


LOUIS GARNEAU: Recalls P-09 Bicycle Helmets Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Walters, writing for WPTV, reports that Louis Garneau
P-09 aerodynamic bicycle helmets have been recalled due to a risk
for injury.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says in cold temperatures,
the helmet can fail to do its job of protecting the user from
impact injuries.

Recalled helmets have the model number 1405362 and they were
manufactured January of 2014.

They were sold in stores and online from January to September of
this year for $280 to $350.

The helmets are shaped like tear drops with a tapered tail at the
back of a helmet and a rounded front.

They come in black, red, and white with silver and white designs.

No injuries have been reported at this time.

If you have a helmet that has been recalled, contact Louis Garneau
USA at (800) 448-1984, email customerserviceusa@louisgarneau.us
or go online to www.louisgarneau.com/us-en/ and click on the
Customer Service tab and then on the Recall tab for more
information.


LUNADA BIOMEDICAL: Court Upholds SLAPPP Ruling in Amberen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a drug company cannot seek a court-issued declaration
that it did not violate California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
by advertising its dietary supplement Amberen as a natural remedy
to relieve menopausal symptoms, the California Second District
Court of Appeal has ruled.

Justice Richard Mosk, writing for the court, ruled that Lunada
Biomedical's action for declaratory relief could be struck down as
a "strategic lawsuit against public participation."  California's
anti-SLAPP law created a special motion to strike lawsuits seeking
to squelch the First Amendment right to free speech or to petition
the government.

Plaintiff Laura Nunez sought to bring a class action against
Lunada and filed a statutorily required notice asking it to stop
its allegedly "false, misleading, and/or unsubstantiated"
advertising and labeling.  Newport Trial Group and Wasserman,
Comden, Casselman & Esensten represented Nunez.

Before Ms. Nunez filed the class action, Lunada sought a judge's
declaration that it had not violated the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.  The appellate court agreed that granting the anti-SLAPP
motion was the correct ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court
Charles Palmer.

Lunada's lawsuit for declaratory relief arose because the
plaintiff exercised her protected right to file a notice regarding
the allegedly deceptive advertising of Amberen, the court said.
Once Lunada received the statutorily required notice, the
drugmaker could not seek declaratory relief that it had not
violated California's consumer protection law.  "The CLRA notice
was required under the CLRA before an action for damages could be
filed and thus is part of the litigation process," Judge Mosk
wrote.

Second, Lunada's lawsuit had no probability of success because the
company cannot sue for declaratory relief regarding a claim of
damages under the CLRA, the court said.  The declaratory relief
action would undermine the statute in question, Judge Mosk wrote.
Only consumers may maintain actions under the CLRA, and "the
declaratory relief action is against one consumer -- Nunez --
thereby eliminating the class action rights of the consumer who
would have been joined in the CLRA class action."

The court also upheld an award of $104,000 in attorney fees to
Newport Trial Group and almost $58,000 in attorney fees to
Wasserman Comden.  The appellate court ordered Lunada pay the
attorney fees accrued for the costs of the appeal.


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Reached Deal in Principle in "Benner" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Benner class action, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 16, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 12, 2014.

On December 21, 2012, Jon Benner, an owner of fractional interests
in The Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences, San Francisco, filed suit
in Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all owners of fractional
interests at the RCC San Francisco who allegedly did not receive
proper notice of their payment obligations under the California's
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982.

The plaintiff alleges that the disclosures made about bonds issued
for the project under this Act and the payment obligations of
fractional interest purchasers with respect to such bonds were
inadequate, and this and other alleged statutory violations
constitute intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and
fraudulent concealment. The relief sought includes damages in an
unspecified amount, rescission of the purchases, restitution and
disgorgement of profits.

Thomas Wanless and Matthew Jenner, owners of another fractional
interest at the RCC San Francisco, filed a complaint in San
Francisco Superior Court on October 15, 2013, that contains
similar allegations and seeks similar relief. The Wanless
complaint has been consolidated with the Benner action and with a
similar action previously filed by fractional interest owner
Elisabeth Gani.

These three lawsuits are distinct from the other lawsuits relating
to the RCC San Francisco because the disclosure process for the
sale of fractional interests differs from that applicable to the
sale of whole-ownership units.

The Company said that, "On September 5, 2014, we reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Benner action, which
agreement is subject to Court approval because the case is a
putative class action. As a result of the agreement in principle,
we recorded a charge of $3 million, which is included in the
Litigation settlement line on the Statements of Income for the
twelve and thirty-six weeks ended September 12, 2014."

"Court approval of the settlement of the Benner action would not
affect the Gani and Wanless cases because none of the plaintiffs
in those actions are members of the stipulated Benner class. We
dispute the material allegations of the Gani and Wanless
complaints and intend to defend against these actions vigorously.
Given the early stages of the Gani and Wanless actions and the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range
of the potential liability, if any, at this time."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Motion to Dismiss "Hoyt" Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Steven B. Hoyt and Bradley
A. Hoyt, against Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 12, 2014.

The Company said, "On December 11, 2012, Steven B. Hoyt and
Bradley A. Hoyt, purchasers of fractional interests in two of The
Ritz-Carlton Destination Club projects, filed suit in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota against us,
certain of our subsidiaries and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of
fractional interests at The Ritz-Carlton Destination Club
projects. The plaintiffs allege that program changes beginning in
2009 caused an actionable decrease in the value of the fractional
interests purchased. The relief sought includes declaratory and
injunctive relief, damages in an unspecified amount, rescission of
the purchases, restitution, disgorgement of profits, interest and
attorneys' fees."

"In response to our motion to dismiss the original complaint,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In response, we filed a
renewed motion to dismiss.

"On February 7, 2014, the court issued an order granting that
motion in part and denying it in part.

"We continue to dispute the material allegations remaining in the
amended complaint and intend to continue to defend against this
action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range
of the potential liability, if any, at this time."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "DeSantis" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 16, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 12,
2014, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action
filed by Salvatore DeSantis, which motion is currently pending
before the Court.

On March 27, 2014, Salvatore DeSantis, an owner of a one-week
vacation ownership interest at Marriott's Harbour Lake, a project
within the Company's North America segment, filed a complaint in
Orange County, Florida, Circuit Court against us and certain of
our subsidiaries on behalf of himself and a putative class
consisting of all owners of weeks-based Marriott Vacation Club
vacation ownership interests on June 20, 2010, the date of the
launch of the Company's North America points-based program,
Marriott Vacation Club Destinations(TM) ("MVCD"). The plaintiff
alleges that the introduction of the MVCD program caused an
actionable decrease in the value of his vacation ownership
interest. The relief sought includes compensatory and exemplary
damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys'
fees pursuant to the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and common-law theories of breach of contract and breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Company said, "We removed the matter to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On May 30,
2014, we filed a motion to dismiss. In response, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, to which we responded by filing a renewed
motion to dismiss on July 31, 2014, which motion is currently
pending before the Court. We dispute the material allegations in
this complaint and intend to defend against this action
vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the
potential liability, if any, at this time."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Suit by Abaco Club Residents Remains Inactive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 16, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 12,
2014, that owners of 35 residences and lots at The Abaco Club
filed on June 28, 2013, a complaint in Orange County, Florida
Circuit Court against the Company, one of its subsidiaries,
certain subsidiaries of Marriott International and the resort's
owners' association, alleging that the defendants failed to
maintain the golf course, golf clubhouse, roads, water supply
system, and other facilities and equipment in a manner
commensurate with a five-star luxury resort, and certain
deficiencies in the quality of services provided at the resort.

Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants failed to honor an
obligation to extend a right of first offer to club owners in
connection with plans to sell the club property. Plaintiffs allege
statutory and common law claims for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and fraud and seek compensatory and punitive
damages.

"We have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. We dispute the
material allegations in this complaint and intend to defend
against this action vigorously," the Company said.

"In April 2014, this action was abated for a period after we
entered into a non-binding letter of intent to dispose of
undeveloped and partially developed land, an operating golf
course, spa and clubhouse and related facilities at The Abaco Club
to an entity to be comprised of certain members of The Abaco Club,
including certain of the plaintiffs, and others.

"Although the abatement period provided by the letter of intent
has elapsed, the civil action remains inactive. The transaction
contemplated by the purchase and sale agreement is subject to a
number of closing conditions, and we cannot be certain that the
transaction will be completed in a timely manner, or at all. If
the transaction is completed as contemplated by the purchase and
sale agreement, we could incur a non-cash loss of up to $25
million, and all claims asserted against us in this matter would
be dismissed with prejudice."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: No Action Taken on Appeal in "Krishna" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 16, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 12,
2014, that Krishna and Sherrie Narayan and other owners of 12
residential units at the resort formerly known as The Ritz-Carlton
Residences, Kapalua Bay ("Kapalua Bay") were granted on January
30, 2013, leave by the Court to file, and subsequently did file,
an amended complaint related to a suit originally filed in Circuit
Court for Maui County, Hawaii in June 2012 against the Company,
certain of its subsidiaries, Marriott International, certain of
its subsidiaries, and the joint venture in which the Company has
an equity investment that developed and marketed vacation
ownership and residential products at Kapalua Bay (the "Joint
Venture").

In the original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that defendants
mismanaged funds of the residential owners association (the
"Kapalua Bay Association"), created a conflict of interest by
permitting their employees to serve on the Kapalua Bay
Association's board, and failed to disclose documents to which the
plaintiffs were allegedly entitled.  The amended complaint alleges
breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Hawaii Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Hawaii condominium statute,
intentional misrepresentation and concealment, unjust enrichment
and civil conspiracy.

"The relief sought in the amended complaint includes injunctive
relief, repayment of all sums paid to us and our subsidiaries and
Marriott International and its subsidiaries, compensatory and
punitive damages, and treble damages under the Hawaii Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act," the Company said.  "We dispute the
material allegations in the amended complaint and continue to
defend against this action vigorously."

"On August 23, 2013, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
reversed the Maui Circuit Court's denial of our motion to compel
arbitration of the claims asserted by plaintiffs. The Circuit
Court subsequently granted our renewed motion to compel
arbitration and referred the matter to arbitration. The Hawaii
Supreme Court thereafter agreed to review the decision of the
Intermediate Court of Appeals and heard oral argument in the case
on April 3, 2014, but has not yet taken any action to affirm or
reverse that decision.

"Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at this time.
In the second quarter of 2014, we recorded a nominal charge as a
result of the agreement by owners of two residential units to
release their claims in this action."


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Parties in "Charles" Suit in Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuit filed by Earl C. and Patricia A. Charles
and others against Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation are
currently engaged in arbitration, Marriott said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 16, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 12,
2014.

Earl C. and Patricia A. Charles, owners of a fractional interest
at Kapalua Bay, together with owners of 38 other fractional
interests at Kapalua Bay, filed on June 19, 2013, an amended
complaint in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit for the State
of Hawaii against the Company, certain of its subsidiaries,
Marriott International, certain of its subsidiaries, the Joint
Venture, and other entities that have equity investments in the
Joint Venture.

The amended complaint supersedes a prior complaint that was not
served on any defendant. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
failed to disclose the financial condition of the Joint Venture
and the commitment of the defendants to the Joint Venture, and
that defendants' actions constituted fraud and violated the Hawaii
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Hawaii Condominium
Property Act and the Hawaii Time Sharing Plans statute. The relief
sought includes compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, pre-judgment interest, declaratory relief, rescission and
treble damages under the Hawaii Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The complaint was subsequently further amended to
add owners of two additional fractional interests as plaintiffs.

"The Circuit Court granted our motion to compel arbitration of the
claims asserted by the plaintiffs, and the parties are currently
engaged in arbitration," the Company said.  "We dispute the
material allegations in the amended complaint and in the statement
of claim filed in the arbitration, and intend to defend against
this action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and
the inherent uncertainties of litigation and arbitration, we
cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at
this time. Additionally, owners of two fractional interests have
since agreed to release their claims in this action in connection
with the Kapalua Bay Settlement."

In the fourth quarter of 2013, the Company reached an agreement
with several parties involved in Kapalua Bay, including the
foreclosure purchasers of the unsold interests in the project,
other entities that have equity investments in the Joint Venture,
the Kapalua Bay Association, and the Kapalua Bay Vacation Owners
Association (the fractional owners' association), to mutually
settle pending and threatened claims relating to the project (the
"Kapalua Bay Settlement").

In connection with the Kapalua Bay Settlement, owners of 132 of
the 177 developer-sold fractional interests (including owners of
two fractional interests who were plaintiffs in the Charles
action) provided full releases to the Company and other parties
associated with the project. In addition, one residential owner
provided a full release to the Company and other parties
associated with the project.

"As a result, we recorded a charge of $8 million in 2013, which
was partially offset by $7 million of income recorded for partial
repayment of our previously fully reserved receivables due from
the Joint Venture. Both were included in Impairment charges on
equity investment on the consolidated statement of operations for
the year ended January 3, 2014," the Company said.


MEDTRONICS INC: "Anders" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned DENNIS BRIAN ANDERS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC.,
and DOES 1-100, Defendants, NO. 4:14CV01637 ERW (E.D. Mo.), is
remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, according
to an Oct. 17, 2014, memorandum and order issued by Judge E.
Richard Webber, Sr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division.  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/qh8JcAfrom Leagle.com.

Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Defendant, is represented by:

         Martin J. Buckley, Esq.
         John Elliot Gibbons, Esq.
         BUCKLEY AND BUCKLEY, L.L.C.
         1139 Olive Street, Suite 800
         St. Louis, MO 63101
         Tel: (314) 621-3434
         Fax: (314) 621-3485
         Email: mbuckley@buckleylawllc.com
                jgibbons@buckleylawllc.com

            - and -

         Andrew E. Tauber, Esq.
         MAYER BROWN LLP
         1999 K Street, N.W.
         Washington, DC 20006-1101
         Tel: (202) 263-3000
         Fax: (202) 263-3300
         Email: atauber@mayerbrown.com

            - and -

         Daniel L. Ring, Esq.
         MAYER BROWN LLP
         71 S. Wacker Drive
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Tel: (312) 782-0600
         Fax: (312) 701-7711
         Email: dring@mayerbrown.com

            - and -

         Murray S. Levin, Esq.
         Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
         PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
         Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100
         1313 Market Street
         P.O. Box 1709
         Wilmington, DE 19899-1709
         Tel: (302) 777-6500
         Fax: (302) 421-8390
         Email: levinm@pepperlaw.com

            - and -

         Sean P. Fahey, Esq.
         PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
         3000 Two Logan Square
         Eighteenth and Arch Streets
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
         Tel: (215) 981-4000
         Fax: (215) 981.4750
         Email: faheys@pepperlaw.com

Medtronic, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation headquartered in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., is a
Tennessee corporation headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.  MSD is
a wholly owned subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc.


MERCK & CO: Failed to Convince Court to Toss Out Bross Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joel A. Pisano denied defendants' motion to dismiss
in its entirety the putative class action KELLI SMITH, KANDICE
BROSS, RACHEL MOUNTIS, AMY SHURSKY and KATE WHITMER, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female employees,
Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-
CV-2970 (JAP) (D. N.J.).

The class suit consists of 12 causes of action against Merck & Co.
Plaintiffs' class allegations involve gender disparity and
discrimination claims surrounding Merck & Co's promoting
practices.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the company
fosters a "boys' club" environment in which women are excluded
from the company's "tap-on-the-shoulder" promotions and
promotional opportunities.

A copy of the District Court's Oct. 8, 2014 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/mGbUi4from Leagle.com.

MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant, is represented by MICHAEL S,
BURKHARDT, Esq. -- mburkhardt@morganlewis.com -- & BLAIR JOSEPH
ROBINSON, Esq. -- blair.robinson@morganlewis.com -- of MORGAN
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP.


METAL SOURCE: Faces "Lim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Young Nak Lim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Metal Source America, Inc., AIA Recycling Corporation,
and Na Y Kim, Case No. 3:14-cv-00159 (N.D. Ga., October 15, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the meal scrap recycling business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Homero Leon, Jr., Esq.
      LEON AND KIM, LLC
      3006 Clairmont Road
      Atlanta, GA 30329
      Telephone: 678.302.1956
      Facsimile: 404.601.1391
      E-Mail: leonandkimllc@gmail.com


MGIC INVESTMENT: Continues to Face Actions Over RESPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation said in a filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2014, that consumers
continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and
settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including MGIC,
have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-
referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA.
MGIC's settlement of class action litigation against it under
RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named
plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December
2004, following denial of class certification in June 2004.
Since December 2006, class action litigation has been brought
against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive
mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. Beginning in
December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage lenders and
other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant in twelve
lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S.
District Courts. Seven of those cases have previously been
dismissed without any further opportunity to appeal. The
complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the lenders' captive reinsurers
received excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by
those captives, thereby violating RESPA. MGIC denies any
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations in the lawsuits. There can be no assurance that we
will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or
that the outcome of any such litigation, including the lawsuits,
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company.


MICHAEL MEISNER: Dist. Ct. Tosses Class Cert. Bid in "Davis" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey M. Davis, Jr., and Christopher Goodvine are both inmates
incarcerated by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections at the
Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage and regular filers in
the court. In JEFFREY M. DAVIS, JR. and CHRISTOPHER GOODVINE,
Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MEISNER, et al., Defendants, NO. 4-CV-278-
WMC, (W.D. Wis.), Messrs. Davis and Goodvine filed a proposed
amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, concerning
the conditions of their confinement at CCI. Messrs. Davis and
Goodvine also moved to certify a class action.

District Judge William M. Conley, in an opinion and order dated
October 15, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/wlEl2Efrom Leagle.com, denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. Judge Conley said he will sever and
dismiss the individual claims proposed in the case by Mr.
Goodvine, without prejudice to Mr. Goodvine raising them in a
separate lawsuit. The court directed Mr. Davis to narrow his
claims in the case before undergoing screening.

Mr. Davis's request for leave to proceed with the proposed amended
complaint was denied.

Mr. Davis has one opportunity to submit a proper complaint in the
case. The final, amended complaint must be filed within 30 days.
If Mr. Davis does not file an amended complaint as directed, the
case will be closed without further notice. Any amended complaint
filed by Mr. Davis will be screened in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A. If the complaint filed by Mr. Davis fails to comply
with the order, the court will dismiss the complaint and this
action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (b).

John Does 1-60, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis
Finkelmeyer, Wisconsin Department of Justice.


MONTREALIMPORT.COM: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Packaging, Inc., and Lauren Minniti, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Montrealimport.com, a
Canadian sole proprietorship, Rene Major, Jr., an individual, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08029 (N.D. Ill., October 15, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants sent unsolicited junk faxes in bulk to unwilling
recipients with deficient opt-out notices.

Montrealimport.com offers electrical and lighting products to
businesses and consumers throughout the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


MOTT'S LLP: Court Grants Partial Summary Bid in "Rahman" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion for summary judgment in the consumer class
action captioned MOHAMMED RAHMAN, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. MOTT'S LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, NO. CV 13-3482 SI, (N.D.
Cal.).

Mott's is the manufacturer of various food products containing the
statement "No Sugar Added" on their labels and/or packaging.
Plaintiff Mohammed Rahman alleges that the use of the statement
"No Sugar Added" on Mott's 100% Apple Juice does not comply with
the applicable Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.
On June 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed the class action complaint
in San Francisco County Superior Court against Mott's and Dr.
Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.  On July 26, 2013, defendants removed
the action to the Northern District of California Court.  The
plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint (SAC) on
February 24, 2014, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq; (2) violation of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL), California Business and
Professions Code Section 17500 et seq; (3) violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil
Code Section 1750 et seq; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5)
breach of quasi-contract.  Mott's moved to dismiss the SAC but the
Court denied the motion.  Defendant then filed a motion for
summary judgment.

"The Court grants defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Rahman's claims under the CLRA, FAL, the fraud and unfair prongs
of the UCL, and for negligent misrepresentation," wrote Judge
Illston in his October 14, 2014 order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/JLfGaqfrom Leagle.com.  "The Court
grants defendant's motion for summary judgment on whether Rahman
has Article III standing for injunctive relief. The Court denies
defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Rahman's claims
under the unlawful prong of the UCL and for breach of quasi-
contract," she added.

Mott's LLP, Defendant, represented by Kevin Marshall Sadler --
kevin.sadler@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P., Ryan Lee
Bangert -- ryan.bangert@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P. & Van
H. Beckwith -- van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Opt-Out Players Lose "Publicity Rights" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that former
football players who opted out of a $50 million settlement for
"publicity rights" have fumbled.

On Oct. 10, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in St. Paul held
that the First Amendment protects the National Football League
from claims brought by three former players who want the league to
pay them for the unauthorized use of their images in the popular
NFL Films.  He granted the NFL summary judgment in a 40-page
ruling that could affect the claims of roughly 2,000 other opt-out
players with cases before him.

The NFL was represented by a Debevoise team lead by Bruce Keller,
as well as by a team from Faegre Baker Daniels including Daniel
Connolly, Aaron Van Oort and Eileen Hunter.

The lawsuit began in 2009, when a group of former football
players, including John Frederick Dryer, Elvin Lamont Bethea and
Edward Alvin White, asserted that the NFL should pay them for
using footage of them in NFL Films.  The plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of roughly 23,000 former players.

The settlement, announced in March 2013, would establish a $42
million trust for former players to fund health care costs and
medical research of football injuries.  The NFL also agreed to
create an independent licensing company to work with former
players.  Judge Magnuson approved the settlement last December,
but some class members have appealed the deal's fairness to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Ruling on the opt-out claims by Messrs. Dryer, Bethea and White,
Magnuson held that stories created by NFL Films are not commercial
speech, even though the NFL makes lots of money from them.  The
films are more like news and, as such, deserve First Amendment
protection, Judge Magnuson ruled.

Judge Magnuson must still rule on the claims of the remaining
2,000 opt-out players, which were transferred from district courts
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Messrs. Dryer, Bethea and White are represented by Jeffery Gleason
-- jsgleason@rkmc.com -- of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi.


NETWORK CAPITAL: Lower Ct. Ruling on "Papke" Arbitration Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Capital Funding Corporation filed a declaratory relief
action alleging its arbitration agreement with Erik Papke required
Mr. Papke to arbitrate his wage and hour claims on an individual
basis rather than the classwide basis he sought in his pending
arbitration proceeding.  Mr. Papke petitioned the trial court for
an order compelling Network Capital to submit its declaratory
relief claims to arbitration.  Mr. Papke reasoned that the broad
language in the parties' arbitration agreement required the
arbitrator, not the court, to decide whether the agreement
authorized class arbitration.  The trial court denied Mr. Papke's
petition, concluding it must decide whether the arbitration
agreement authorized class arbitration, and in doing so found this
particular agreement did not allow class arbitration.  Mr. Papke
challenged both conclusions on appeal.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
agrees with the trial court.  "Supreme Court precedent requires
courts to decide whose claims are covered by an arbitration
agreement unless the parties clearly and unmistakably agree to
have the arbitrator decide that question. Because Papke's and
Network Capital's arbitration agreement does not clearly and
unmistakably designate the arbitrator to determine whether the
agreement authorizes class arbitration, we conclude the trial
court properly decided that question," the Appellate Court opined.

The appeals case is NETWORK CAPITAL FUNDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff
and Respondent, v. ERIK PAPKE, Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
G049172 (Calif. App. Ct.).  The Appellate Court's Oct. 9, 2014
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/jZh17Bfrom Leagle.com.

Fisher & Phillips's Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq. --
lgiamela@laborlawyers.com and Jimmie E. Johnson, Esq. --
jjohnson@laborlawyers.com -- represent Plaintiff and Respondent.


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Judge Stays Tainted-Steroid Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that a judge has stayed litigation against a pharmacy that
produced contaminated steroid drugs that caused a multistate
breakout of meningitis.

The stay will pause court actions against, and limit discovery
into, the "insiders" who owned the pharmacy, the pharmacy's
landlord and the pharmacy's insurers.

In total, all those parties have agreed to pay about $100 million
to the pharmacy's bankruptcy estate, to help compensate personal-
injury plaintiffs who were killed or injured by the tainted
steroids.

U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel acted on a motion by Paul Moore, the
trustee in New England Compounding Center's bankruptcy.

The official committee of unsecured creditors and the plaintiffs'
steering committee supported the trustee's motion.  Several health
care providers that administered the steroids to patients and have
also been sued opposed the stay out of concern that it would
prevent them from "seeking and obtaining important evidence
necessary to establish their defenses or preserve their third-
party claims."

Judge Zobel said the order "does not prohibit defendants from
pressing affirmative defenses or claims against individuals or
entities other than the settling parties, nor does it block
discovery relevant to such defenses (including comparative fault
or negligence) or claims from the settling parties."

While the health care defendants can't directly pursue claims
against the settling parties, the statute of limitations and other
state-law requirements will be tolled during the stay, in case the
pharmacy and other "insiders" don't win released from liability to
third parties during the pharmacy's liquidation, Judge Zobel said.

Starting in September 2012, patients around the country began
contracting fungal meningitis after receiving injections of
methylprednisolone acetate compounded by NECC.  As of October
2013, 64 people had died and 751 individuals were sickened.

As of August, almost 530 cases were pending in the MDL.  According
to the trustee, 3,300 claims have been submitted in the bankruptcy
proceedings.


NEW JERSEY: South Orange-Maplewood Sued Over Tracking Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education alleges
that tracking and discipline practices in the school district for
Maplewood and South Orange, N.J., have a disproportionately
adverse impact on nonwhite students.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and other groups
filed the complaint Oct. 9 with the U.S. Department of Education's
Office for Civil Rights, claiming that the school district's
practices have a disparate impact under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.

The complaint says tracking policies in the South Orange-Maplewood
School District disproportionately confine nonwhite students to
lower-level classes and that its disciplinary rules punish
nonwhite students to a greater degree than their white peers.

The complaint does not allege that the district intentionally
discriminates against students, but "asserts that the
administration of the district's discipline and tracking policies
have an adverse and unlawfully disparate impact on black students,
Hispanic students, students with disabilities, and -- most
profoundly with respect to discipline policies -- black and
Hispanic students with disabilities," the complaint says.

The complaint targets the school district's practice of sorting
students into different classes on the basis of their perceived
ability or previous achievement, and seeks a phasing out of
tracking in the district's middle school and high school over a
period of six to 10 years.

The suit seeks to place all students in higher-level classes, with
services for students who struggle in the more advanced curriculum
and for gifted students who need additional enrichment.  Teachers
would be given training to ensure they are equipped to teach
students at all levels, and Advanced Placement courses would
remain but would be open to any student who wishes to enroll.

Some high-achieving black students in the district are placed in
lower-level classes and some white students who are not top
students end up in Advanced Placement classes, said Alexander
Shalom, senior staff attorney for the ACLU-NJ, which brought the
complaint along with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Racial Justice Program and the Center for Civil Rights Remedies of
the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los
Angeles.

"What we have in South Orange-Maplewood and, to be fair, in other
schools throughout the state, is schools that appear diverse, but
are not," Mr. Shalom said.  "There seem to be very few benefits to
this segregation and there are real, demonstrable harms."

The complaint also charges that the South Orange-Maplewood School
District's discipline policies are unduly harsh and that out-of-
school suspensions are routinely handed down for a wide range of
infractions.  The complaint seeks a limit on the use of out-of-
school suspensions and a requirement that less-severe punishments
be used for all but the most serious offenses.

The complaint said white students have a 2.7 percent suspension
rate, compared to 14.7 percent for black students and 6.5 percent
for Hispanics.  For students with disabilities, the suspension
rate is 5 percent for white students, 28.1 percent for blacks and
4.3 percent for Hispanics.

James Memoli, acting superintendent of the South Orange Maplewood
School District, said that while he could not comment specifically
on active litigation, the district has "taken many steps over the
past seven years to address the academic achievement gap, and
while we have seen some progress, there is much more work in front
of us."

"We are eager to partner with anyone who can help us accelerate
our work to achieve our mission: 'To prepare each and every
student, regardless of demographic or socioeconomic background,
for postsecondary educational success,'" Mr. Memoli said.


NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Attendants' Wage Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that more than 1,000 New York attendants who work 24-hour
shifts caring for elderly and disabled clients in their homes have
been approved to proceed with their wage-and-hour class action.

The attendants, who are paid an hourly rate for 12 daytime hours
and a flat rate for 12 nighttime hours, argue that they should be
paid at least minimum wage for each hour of a 24-hour shift.  They
also want to be paid 1.5 times the hourly rate for working more
than 40 hours in one week and to be paid a statutorily required
premium "of one additional hour at the minimum wage rate" for days
they work in excess of 10 hours.

Defendants New York Health Care Inc. and chief executive officer
Murray Englard and the New York Home Attendant Agency argued that
the class should not be certified because it would require an
individualized inquiry into each home attendants' work records to
determine whether they had gotten eight hours of sleep, at least
five hours of uninterrupted sleep and three hours of meal time
during their 24-hour shifts.  The defendants also argued that the
time set aside for class members to sleep and to have meal breaks
can be excluded from their pay.

However, Kings County Supreme Court Justice Carolyn Demarest
concluded that "it is clear that putative class members were never
relieved from their duties during a 24-hour shift and were on call
and responsible for responding to the client's needs at any point
during a shift."  Two of the class representative testified they
rarely or never had uninterrupted sleep or meal breaks.

"Using the predominant benefits test, it is evidence that home
attendants assigned 24-hour shifts remain in the client's home for
the benefit of the employer and the client, and their use of time
is so restricted as to qualify as work," Judge Demarest wrote.

A class action is appropriate, the justice said, because there is
a common issue to be decided; potential damages can be ascertained
through payroll records; and unified litigation will be more
efficient than "over a thousand individual administrative
determinations."


NU SKIN: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2014, that
beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah:  Freedman v. Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al.; Bennett v.
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al., which the plaintiff
subsequently dismissed voluntarily; Zapata v. Nu Skin Enterprises,
Inc., et al., which was also voluntarily dismissed; Siesser v. Nu
Skin Enterprises, Inc., et al.; Granzow v. Nu Skin Enterprises,
Inc., et al.; and State-Boston Retirement System v. Nu Skin
Enterprises, Inc., et al. (collectively, the "Class Action
Complaints").  The Class Action Complaints purport to assert
claims on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M.
Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt.
The Class Action Complaints allege that, inter alia, we made
materially false and misleading statements regarding our sales
operations in and financial results derived from Mainland China,
including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal
multi-level marketing activities.

On April 10, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion
requesting that the court consolidate the various purported class
actions, appoint State-Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff
in the consolidated action, and appoint the law firm Labaton
Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the
consolidated action.  On May 1, 2014, that stipulated motion was
granted.

"We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations in these
actions.  On August 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss," the
Company said.


OML ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Ellis, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. OML Enterprises, Inc., Stephen Lee, and MDXCEL, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05841 (E.D. Pa., October 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate International House of Pancakes
restaurant at 1320 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC
      715 Twining Rd Ste 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


ORACLE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged No-Poach Pact
----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, The Recorder, reports that Oracle Corp. is the
latest Silicon Valley tech company to be slapped with a lawsuit
claiming it illegally restricted hiring.

Oracle conspired with Google Inc. to drive down wages and restrict
competition, according to the antitrust suit filed on Oct. 14 in
the Northern District of California.  Starting in May 2007, the
complaint claims, the companies agreed not to pursue the other's
employees as candidates for managerial or other senior positions.
Microsoft Corp., Novell Inc. and Sun Microsystems Inc., which
Oracle acquired in 2010, were also part of the conspiracy,
according to the suit filed by Jeffrey Hogue --
jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- and Tyler Belong --
tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com -- of Hogue Belong in San Diego.

"The intended and actual effect of the restricted hiring agreement
was to fix and suppress employee compensation, and to impose
unlawful restrictions on employee mobility," the lawyers wrote.
Garrison v. Oracle, 14-4592, is one of many alleging a network of
"no-poach" pacts among Silicon Valley executives.  Lucasfilm Ltd.,
Pixar Animation Studios Inc. and Intuit Inc. settled claims last
year for $20 million.  Google, Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and
Intel Corp. have proposed a $324.5 million settlement, which U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh rejected in August as too small.  The
defendants have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

And in September, plaintiffs lawyers launched new claims against a
handful of California animation studios, including Pixar,
Lucasfilm and DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc.

Hogue Belong seeks to represent a class of Oracle managers and
senior employees who worked at the company from 2007 to the
present.  Named plaintiff Greg Garrison was a senior account
manager who oversaw Oracle's Crystal Ball forecasting software.
Though the companies were allowed to recruit and hire lower-level
employees, including engineers, plaintiffs lawyers argue the
alleged hiring restrictions affected every employee at Oracle and
the other companies involved.

"The wages of those top tier employees, as well as all other
employees underneath them are suppressed," the lawyers wrote,
"because companies are highly unlikely to offer higher salaries to
subordinates than they are to managers and executives."


OVERLAND STORAGE: Inks MOU in Shareholders Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Overland Storage, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action cases
referred to as "In re Overland Storage Inc., Shareholders
Litigation" that would, subject to court approval and other
standard conditions, provide for the settlement of all outstanding
claims in regard to the Company's proposed merger transaction with
Sphere 3D Corporation.

In May 2014, the Company announced that it had signed an agreement
and plan of merger with Sphere. Since the merger was announced,
four separate putative shareholder class action lawsuits were
filed against the Company, all of its directors, Merger Sub, and
Sphere (the "Company Defendants") in the California Superior Court
in and for the County of San Diego (the "Merger Actions"). Three
of the lawsuits also named as a defendant Cyrus Capital Partners,
the investment manager of the Cyrus Funds, which own the majority
of the Company shares.

On June 25, 2014, the Superior Court entered an order providing
for the consolidation of all cases relating to the Company's
decision to enter into the merger agreement with Sphere. These
cases have been consolidated before a single judge and are
referred to as In re Overland Storage Inc., Shareholders
Litigation, Lead Case No. 37-2014-00016017-CU-SL-CTL (the
"Consolidated Action").

On July 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint. The lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and
conflicts of interest against the Company's directors relating to
the merger process, the terms of the merger agreement, and the
consideration to be received by the Company's shareholders under
the terms of the merger agreement. The lawsuit alleges that the
other defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Company's directors. The relief sought
includes an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
proposed merger, rescission of the merger to the extent already
implemented or rescissory damages, damages, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 13, 2014, the plaintiffs and the Company Defendants
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") to settle the Consolidated Action and Merger
Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding provides, among other
things, that additional disclosures would be made concerning the
analysis performed by the Company's financial advisor relating to
the proposed merger, the Company's management projections, and the
circumstances leading up to the proposed merger.

While the Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit,
and the Company specifically denies the allegations made in the
lawsuits and maintains that it and the other defendants committed
no wrongdoing whatsoever, to permit the timely consummation of the
proposed merger, and without admitting the validity of any
allegations made in the lawsuits, the Company concluded that it is
desirable that the Consolidated Action and Merger Actions be
resolved. The proposed settlement of the Consolidated Action and
Merger Actions, which is subject to confirmatory discovery and
court approval, provides for the release of all claims against the
defendants relating to the proposed merger and the allegations in
the Consolidated Action and Merger Actions. There can be no
assurance that the settlement will be finalized or that the
Superior Court will approve the settlement.

Overland Storage is a global provider of unified data management
and data protection solutions across the data lifecycle.


PASCHALL TRUCK: Sued for Sending Unsolicited Facsimile Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grok Lines, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Paschall Truck Lines, Inc., a Kentucky
corporation, alleges that the Defendants sent unsolicited junk
faxes in bulk to unwilling recipients with deficient opt-out
notices.

Paschall Truck Lines, Inc. is a freight carrier that offers
transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


PURE FOOD: Popeye's Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Stapleton, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that when Hartford lawyer Kenneth Krayeske was a teenager growing
up in Watertown, he worked at a fast food restaurant to earn money
during the summer.

Now, he's representing dozens of cooks, cashiers and other workers
of six different Popeye's chicken restaurants in Connecticut in a
lawsuit against the franchise owner.  The lawsuit seeks recovery
of unpaid overtime that Mr. Krayeske says was earned to his
clients, but never paid.

The lawsuit filed by Mr. Krayeske claims Pure Foods Management,
which is owned by Shahid Hashmi and Fazal Panezai and operates 37
Popeye's restaurants throughout the Northeast, systematically
deprived workers of overtime in a variety of ways.

One way the franchise owners did this was by requiring employees
to show up for scheduled shifts, but not "punch in" for work until
the restaurant was "sufficiently busy," the complaint says.  The
other was to have workers drive to different restaurant locations,
but not pay for the time it took for them to make the drive or
compensate them for the mileage.

"I worked for a McDonald's restaurant when I was a kid, and the
franchise might have us go down to a store in Seymour, or
Waterbury, but we were always paid for the time and the mileage,"
Mr. Krayeske said.  "And it was always paid in the same check."

According to food service trade publications, Pure Foods
Management, which operates Popeye's restaurants in Connecticut,
New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Virginia, has annual
revenues of about $60 million.

Mr. Krayeske said he filed the lawsuit in federal court in
Connecticut because most of his clients are from the state.  The
complaint is the latest of several to be filed in Connecticut over
worker overtime.

Since 2008, two settlements have been reached over worker overtime
with BJ's Wholesale Club; one for $2.8 million and the other for
$9 million, with a third suit filed recently in Connecticut.  Back
in June, Berlin limousine company Premier was ordered to pay
$500,000 to drivers who weren't paid the overtime they should have
been paid.

Unpaid overtime claims also led to a $2 million settlement against
FedEx earlier this year.

The Popeye's franchising group, which has restaurants in Hartford,
New London, North Haven, Trumbull and Wallingford, is also accused
of requiring the workers to "clock out" to run errands, including
buying food and supplies for the restaurants, and then not
compensating the workers for that time.

The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify their case as
a class action.  Attorneys for the Popeye's restaurant franchises
could not immediately be reached for comment.


R.J. REYNOLDS: 11th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Aycock" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned THELMA AYCOCK, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Richard Aycock, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R.J. REYNOLDS
TOBACCO COMPANY, individually and as successor by merger to the
Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and the American Tobacco
Company, Defendant-Appellant, PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., et al,
Defendants, NO. 13-14060, R.J. Reynolds appealed a district
court's final judgment following a jury verdict awarding
compensatory damages in the amount of $5.9 million to the
plaintiff, Thelma Aycock, for her "loss of support and services,
loss of companionship and protection, and her mental pain and
suffering, as a result of her husband's lung cancer and death,"
the legal cause of which was attributed to his addiction to
smoking cigarettes manufactured by the defendant.

Reynolds is seeking a reversal of the judgment against it and a
new trial, saying the district court erred in excluding evidence
of the deceased's alcohol abuse as it related to his death, and
because the denial of a continuance unfairly infringed on
Reynolds' right to counsel of its choice.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit found that
the district court erred in granting plaintiff's motion in limine
to exclude evidence under Rule 403. The evidence excluded was of
high probative value and did not cause a high amount of unfair
prejudice, ruled the Circuit Court. As such, under Rule 403's
narrowly prescribed balancing test, the evidence should not have
been excluded. On this basis, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and
remanded the case to the district court for a new trial.

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's October 16, 2014 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/qmwC5Hfrom Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports Thelma
Aycock, who pursued a wrongful death suit following the death of
Richard Aycock.  She sued in Orlando federal court alleging her
husband died of lung cancer contracted as a result of his
addiction to cigarettes.

The Aycocks were married for over 50 years, and he died in 1996.
According to testimony, he started smoking cigarettes in his teens
and smoked four packs a day from the mid-1980s until his death.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Sixth Circuit Judge Eugene
Siler, sitting by designation, noted Mr. Aycock had a history of
alcohol abuse that affected his work habits and caused discord in
the marriage.  He attended Alcoholics Anonymous for a time.

The cause of death listed lung cancer, but the cancer had
metastasized to the brain, which was not mentioned, Siler said.
The hospital recommended a pulmonary biopsy to confirm lung
cancer, but the family refused.

Thelma Aycock, represented by Jacksonville attorney Norwood
Wilner, objected to the admission of her husband's alcohol use,
saying it was irrelevant to the cause of death.  His alcohol use
was mentioned to the jury but not in the context of causation,
Judge Siler said.  This improperly shifted the burden of proof to
R.J. Reynolds, he said.

"Lack of confirmation via biopsy left the cause of death open to
some debate," Judge Siler said.

Richard Aycock's alcohol use was relevant in the determination of
comparative fault and because medical research shows it could have
contributed to Mr. Aycock's smoking, the court said.  It also was
relevant to damages, since it affected his relationship with his
family and his ability to work.

"The district court improperly shifted the burden of proof,
forcing Reynolds to prove that Richard's death was caused by
something other than smoking," Judge Siler said.

Chief Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Gerald Tjoflat concurred.


RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Sued Over Defective Paint Products Design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Shogren, Leasha Dixson, Rick Boscardin, and Carol Larson,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Rust-
Oleum Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-08058 (N.D. Ill., October 15,
2014), alleges that the Defendant's Restore paint products contain
serious design and manufacturing defects, making them susceptible
to separating, cracking, bubbling, flaking, chipping, and general
degradation after application.

Rust-Oleum Corporation is a subsidiary of RPM International, Inc.,
which makes protective paints and coatings for home and
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth A. Wexler
      Edward A. Wallace
      Amy E. Keller
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              eaw@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
      Theodore H. Chase
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main St., Ste. 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415)568-2555
      Facsimile: (415)568-2556
      E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
              jezrin@audetlaw.com
              jezrin@audetlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave., S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com


SAFEWAY INC: Delaware Court Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 15, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that the Delaware court
approved a settlement in the class actions over the merger
transaction, including an award of attorneys' fees in the amount
of $8.95 million and an expense reimbursement in the amount of
$0.2 million to plaintiffs' counsel.

On March 6, 2014, Safeway entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (as amended on April 7, 2014 and on June 13, 2014, the
"Merger Agreement"), with AB Acquisition LLC ("AB Acquisition"),
Albertson's Holdings LLC ("Albertsons Holdings"), a subsidiary of
AB Acquisition, Albertson's LLC ("Albertson's LLC"), a subsidiary
of Albertsons Holdings, and Saturn Acquisition Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub" and together with AB Acquisition, Albertsons
Holdings and Albertson's LLC, "Albertsons"), a subsidiary of
Albertsons Holdings, pursuant to which the parties agreed that, on
the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Albertsons Holdings will acquire Safeway. At the
Company's 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on July 25,
2014, Safeway stockholders approved the proposal to adopt and
approve the Merger Agreement.

Following the announcement of the Merger, 14 purported class
action complaints were filed by alleged stockholders of the
Company against the Company, the individual directors of the
Company, and against Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., AB
Acquisition, Albertsons Holdings, Albertson's LLC and/or Merger
Sub. Seven lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
captioned Barnhard v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9445-VCL
(March 13, 2014); Morales v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9455-
VCL (March 18, 2014); Ogurkiewicz v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 9454-VCL (March 18, 2014); Pipefitters Local 636 Defined
Benefit Fund and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9461-VCL (March 20,
2014); Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension and Health & Welfare
Funds v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9466-VCL (March 24, 2014);
KBC Asset Management NV, Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System, and Bristol County Retirement System
v. Safeway Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9492-VCL (March 31, 2014); and
The City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Safeway Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 9495-VCL (April 1, 2014), which have been
consolidated by order of the Court as In Re Safeway Inc.
Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. 9445-VCL (the "Delaware
Action").

Four other lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Alameda, and are captioned Lopez v.
Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. HG14716651 (March 7, 2014); Groen
v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. RG14716641 (March 7, 2014);
Ettinger v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. RG14716842 (March 11,
2014); and Brockton Ret. Board v. Edwards, et. al., Case No. RG
14720450 (April 7, 2014), which were consolidated by order of the
court (the "Consolidated California State Action"). On May 7,
2014, an amended complaint was filed in the Consolidated
California State Action. On May 14, 2014, the court in the actions
entered an order dismissing the Consolidated California State
Action, finding that the plaintiffs were contractually obligated
to bring their claims against defendants in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in light of the forum selection clause in the Company's
By-Laws.

Three other lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and are captioned
Steamfitters Local 449 Pensions Fund v. Safeway Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-01670 (April 10, 2014); Romaneck v. Safeway Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-02015 (May 1, 2014); and Templeton v.
Safeway Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02412 (May 23, 2014)
(collectively, the "Federal Court Actions"). An amended complaint
was filed in the Steamfitters action on May 15, 2014.

Each of the cases is purportedly brought on behalf of the Company
stockholder class. Collectively, the actions generally allege that
the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger because, among other things, the Merger
involves an unfair price, a flawed sales process and preclusive
deal protection devices. The actions allege that the Company and
various combinations of the Albertsons entities aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint in
the dismissed Consolidated California State Action further alleged
that the proxy statement for the Company's Annual Meeting of
Stockholders failed to disclose material information relating to,
among other things, the fairness opinions of Goldman, Sachs and
Co. and Greenhill & Co., LLC, the Company's financial projections,
analyses concerning the intrinsic value of Blackhawk, and the
background of the proposed transaction. The Federal Court Actions
also allege that the defendants violated Sections 14 and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act because the proxy statement failed to disclose
material information relating to, among other things, the
background of the proposed transaction, the fairness opinions of
Goldman Sachs and Greenhill and the Company's financial
projections. Among other remedies, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the
Merger, or in the event that an injunction is not entered and the
Merger closes, rescission of the Merger or unspecified money
damages, costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

On June 13, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for a settlement of all of the claims in the Delaware
Action on the terms and conditions set forth in a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding"). Pursuant to the
Memorandum of Understanding:

   * the Board amended the Merger Agreement (which such amendments
are incorporated into Amendment No. 2 to the Merger Agreement) to
(i) change the terms of the PDC CVR Agreement so that, among other
things, the holders would, instead of not receiving any value for
any PDC assets that remain unsold at the end of the PDC Sale
Deadline (as defined in the Merger Agreement), be entitled to the
fair market value of the unsold PDC assets, after the payment of
certain fees, expenses and debt repayments, and net of certain
assumed taxes (based on a 39.25% rate) and (ii) change the terms
of the Casa Ley CVR Agreement to, among other things, (A) reduce
the Casa Ley Sale Deadline (as defined in the Merger Agreement)
from four years to three years and (B) provide that in the event
that any equity interests of Casa Ley owned by the Company remain
unsold as of the Casa Ley Sale Deadline, the fair market value
determination to be made either mutually by the Company and the
Shareholder Representative (as defined in the Merger Agreement) or
by an independent investment banking firm shall exclude any
minority, liquidity or similar discount regarding such equity
interests relative to the value of Casa Ley in its entirety;

   * the Board adopted an amendment to the Company's Stockholder
Rights Plan to accelerate the expiration date; and

   * the Company made certain changes to the Proxy Statement for
the Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

The plaintiffs in the Federal Court Actions have reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action whereby they
will participate in the settlement, and the parties in the Federal
Court Actions have entered into stipulations staying the Federal
Court Actions pending resolution of the Delaware Action.

On July 14, 2014, the parties presented a negotiated stipulation
of settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery for approval.

On September 2, 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 September 17, 2014, the Delaware court approved the
settlement, including an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$8.95 million and an expense reimbursement in the amount of $0.2
million to plaintiffs' counsel, entered final judgment and
dismissed the case.  The settlement will become effective upon,
among other things, the closing of the Merger.

In October 2014, Safeway received $3.5 million from insurance
coverage.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Improper Marketing Case Transferred to N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAHLA RABINOWITZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-00801-JCS, (N.D. Cal.) is
a putative class action alleging improper marketing by Defendant
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Plaintiffs are four individuals
who allege that they were misled by Samsung's marketing
differentiation between "LCD TVs" and "LED TVs," when both
categories of televisions used liquid crystal display (LCD)
technology. Plaintiff Shahla Rabinowitz lives in San Diego,
California, and the remaining Plaintiffs live in Florida,
Massachusetts, and Michigan. Samsung, a New York corporation with
its headquarters in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, moved to transfer
venue to the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1404(a).

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the request in his order
dated October 14, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/6J4LtPfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Stopyra, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by SCOTT A. GEORGE --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS, LLP.


SENIOR MIDWEST: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Garcia, Sandra Garcia, Maria Polanco and Dominga Flores, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons known
and unknown v. Senior Midwest Direct, Inc. d/b/a Jetson Mailers,
Midwest Direct Mailers, Inc., and Richard Carosella, individually,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08034 (N.D. Ill., October 15, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure pay overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate a direct mail advertising service
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jenee Gaskin, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.c.
      401 S. Lasalle St., Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121
      E-mail: jgaskin@wagetheftlaw.com
              cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com


SOUTHERN SOLUTIONS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Martinez, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. Southern Solutions Land Management LLC and Southern
Solutions Incorporated and Matthew Thomas Osborne and Christopher
Klein, Case No. 2:14-cv-02366 (E.D. La., October 15, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime pay for
hours worked over 40 in a week.

The Defendants provide demolition and construction services in the
South Louisiana area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
      COSTALES LAW OFFICE
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 914-1048
      E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

         - and -

      William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
      WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


SUPERVALU INC: Class Suit Over Coupon Processing Services Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 6, 2014, that a class action
complaint was filed in September 2008, against the Company, as
well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar,
Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon
Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District
Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the
case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and
a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a
purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i)
conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services
under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise
to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings
have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal
prosecution of certain former officers of IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: 8th Circuit Denied Petition for En Banc Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 6, 2014, that the Eighth Circuit
denied the Company's petition for en banc review by the 8th
Circuit on the reversal of summary judgment decision and specific
issues raised in a class action over a 2003 transaction between
the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.  The complaints allege that
the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-
compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of
the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased
from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions.

On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court
decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to
arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit
for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied
the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District
Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court
ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving
the matter.

On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision
denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers
located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery
products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September
13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider
whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from
the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center.

On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company's petition
for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the
summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder.
The case is now remanded to the District Court for further
proceedings to be determined by the District Court.


SUPERVALU INC: Payments in FWW Case to Begin October or November
----------------------------------------------------------------
Payments to class members in the lawsuit over fluctuating work
week method of pay are expected to begin in late October or early
November 2014, Supervalu Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 6, 2014.

In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A-
Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent
current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week
method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the
District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby
employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a
week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for
overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful
or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method
of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday
pay, and bonus payments.

In March 2013, the United States District Court granted
conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of
whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the
United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for
summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is
permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state
laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case.

The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two
additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly
before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed
by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW
was a legal practice in Connecticut.

In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano)
filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania
state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
relating to overtime payment.

In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously,
plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the
matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the
Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to
settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and
settlement administration costs. The settlement is subject to the
applicable courts' preliminary and final approval. The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014
and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class members are
expected to begin in late October or early November 2014.

The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 million
before tax ($3 million after-tax) in the second quarter of fiscal
2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter.
The Company funded $5 million into a qualified settlement fund on
February 28, 2014.


SUPERVALU INC: Faces "Hanff" & McPeak" Suits Over Intrustion
------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 6, 2014, that in August 2014, two
class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to
the criminal intrusion into the portion of its computer network
that processes payment card transactions for some of its Retail
Food stores, including some of its associated stand-alone liquor
stores (the "Criminal Intrusion") announced by the Company on
August 14, 2014.

Kenneth Hanff, et al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging
breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, negligence and
invasion of privacy as a result of the Criminal Intrusion.

Steve McPeak, et al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
alleging violations of the Federal Stored Communications Act and
Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and negligence as a
result of the Criminal Intrusion. Plaintiffs in both actions seek
the recovery of an unspecified amount of damages.

On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order
transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The
Company expects both actions will be stayed pending a ruling on
the Company's motion.


SUZUKI MOTOR: Faces "Dinwiddie" Suit in OK Over Vehicle Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Dinwiddie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc., a foreign
corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-01127 (W.D. Okla., October 15,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to issue a
vehicle recall notice to correct the electrical defects related to
lighting causing fires in 2004-2008 model Suzuki Forenzas.

Suzuki Motor of America, Inc. engaged in the business of
manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling new motor
vehicles in the United States, including in the State of Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake Sonne, Esq.
      SONNE LAW FIRM, PLC
      P.O. Box 667
      Norman, OK 73070
      Telephone: (405) 664-2919
      Facsimile: (405) 872-8897
      E-mail: bsonne21@yahoo.com
              sonnelawfirm@yahoo.com


TAKEDA PHARMA: Recovers Emails Following Spoliation Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. and five other related
corporations report that they have recovered 61,000 emails and
attachments after a Louisiana federal judge found that the Takeda
was liable for spoliation of evidence in litigation over diabetes
drug Actos.

The production has cost $3.6 million so far, the drugmaker said.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca F. Doherty of the Western District of
Louisiana ruled that Takeda intentionally deleted evidence
relevant to a trial that ended in a $9 billion verdict and
instructed the jury that Takeda had the duty to retain documents
about Actos since 2002.  The jury was free to infer the plaintiffs
would have been helped by now-deleted computer data for 46
employees intimately involved in the drug's production, the judge
said.

Takeda is searching for documents from those 46 different document
custodians based in the United States, Japan or Europe.  It
expects to be done by the end of 2014.

Takeda also reported in a recent court filing that it had restored
21 mailboxes and nine personal files from European-based employees
and 169 mailboxes and 147 personal files for American employees.
As result, more than 41,000 documents have been produced from
retention tapes that have been restored.

More than 20,000 retention tapes, however, remain to be cataloged.
Takeda also is restoring materials from Japan-based Takeda
Pharmaceutical Company Limited's email server backup.  The result
has been the production of 2,800 emails and attachments so far,
according to the drugmaker.

After ruling Takeda intentionally deleted evidence, Judge Doherty
further ruled that the drugmaker acted in bad faith and willfully
abused the judicial process in destroying evidence showing it knew
about the potential health risks of Actos.  Judge Doherty ruled
that Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd, the Japanese entity who
was a defendant in the case along with sibling companies based in
the U.S. and Europe, acted in bad faith in its destruction of
documents and violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.


TEXAS: Panel Refuses to Coordinate Suits v. State Prisons
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal panel has refused to coordinate lawsuits filed on
behalf of inmates in Texas state prisons who died or suffered heat
strokes from soaring temperatures during the summers of 2011 and
2012.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice and its executive
director, Brad Livingston, represented by Texas Attorney General
Greg Abbott, moved on July 14 to transfer seven cases for pretrial
purposes to U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison in the Southern
District of Texas, where a class action is pending on behalf of
inmates of the Wallace Pack Unit, a geriatric prison facility near
Houston.  Jeffrey Edwards of Edwards Law in Austin, who represents
the plaintiffs in most of the cases, supported the move.

The cases -- all filed in federal courts in Texas -- allege that
being housed in temperatures of more than 100 degrees constituted
"cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.  They
also claim they were not accommodated under the Americans With
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  Most of the
prisoners had disabilities, such as diabetes or hypertension.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation heard oral
arguments on Oct. 2 in Louisville.  On Oct. 9, the panel found
that coordination wasn't appropriate because the cases were at
varying stages of discovery and the same plaintiffs attorney had
brought most of them.

That attorney, Edwards, who has partnered with the Texas Civil
Rights Project on the litigation, said he represents the families
of eight inmates who have died and one who survived a heat stroke.
But others have been filed by inmates themselves.  "There was some
concern about the effect an MDL would have on pro se inmates
filing these claims," he said of the panel's decision.

A call to Mr. Abbott's office was not returned.  The cases,
including four additional lawsuits that attorneys identified later
in court papers, named the department and Livingston, dozens of
prison officials and the University of Texas Medical Branch at
Galveston, which provides health care to inmates.

Most of the cases are wrongful-death actions arising from prisons
predominantly in eastern Texas.  The class action seeks injunctive
relief that would require the facilities to remain below a certain
temperature -- not unlike a federal judge's order last year
requiring Louisiana state officials to maintain a heat index of no
higher than 88 degrees for death row inmates at the Louisiana
State Penitentiary at Angola.

In the Texas cases, the state defendants have petitioned the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reverse rulings allowing
discovery and rejecting motions to dismiss based on qualified
immunity for the prison officials.  In some cases, plaintiffs have
moved for sanctions based on alleged discovery violations.


UNITED ROAD: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Daniels, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. United Road Towing, Inc.,
a/k/a United Road Towing Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08019
(N.D. Ill., October 15, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

United Road Towing, Inc. provides towing services in Chicago,
Illinois, and nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 513-9555
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
              jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: 11th Cir. Scolds Lower Court Over Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reports that the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit has
criticized a lower court for requiring pre-discovery case
management before it has ruled on the legal sufficiency of a
plaintiff's complaint.

Judge Adalberto Jordan, writing for the appeals court, reversed a
district judge's motion to dismiss the mass tort complaints of
Florida residents who allege United Technologies Corp., doing
business as Pratt & Whitney, has polluted their groundwater
because chemicals have leached from its plant at which it
manufactures aircraft and rocket engines.

The appellate court not only ruled that the plaintiffs' complaints
should not have been dismissed, but it criticized the lower court
for ordering the parties to produce evidence in support of their
claims before even ruling on whether their complaints were legally
sufficient.

At least one plaintiff has allegedly developed cancer as a result
of the groundwater contamination, and the other plaintiffs are
seeking restitution from having their property values in the Palm
Beach County residential area of "The Acreage" decline due to the
pollution.  The Acreage also has been identified as a cancer
cluster by the Palm Beach County Health Department.

The appellate court said that having expert testimony and evidence
produced before the motions to dismiss were decided made the
appellate arguments confusing and disorganized.

Judge Jordan also said that the appeals were "schizophrenic"
because they referenced to expert testimony and evidence presented
by the parties when the issue was a preliminary one: Had the
plaintiffs pleaded sufficient allegations to survive a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) and
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.

When the case proceeded to a hearing, the district court told the
parties that it did not want to discuss the expert testimony and
evidence produced as a result of its Lone Pine orders, which
require parties pursuing mass torts cases to "provide some factual
support, including expert testimony for their claims or run the
risk of having those claims dismissed."

But Judge Jordan noted "the district court and the parties
frequently strayed beyond the four corners of the complaints and
discussed the expert testimony and factual submissions contained
in the Lone Pine filings."

Judge Jordan said there Lone Pine orders have their purpose, but
they should not be put into place until after the motion-to-
dismiss stage.

"It is one thing to demand that plaintiffs come forward with some
evidence supporting certain basic elements of their claims as a
way of organizing (and maybe bifurcating) the discovery process
once a case is at issue, and dealing with discrete issues or
claims by way of partial summary judgment motions," Judge Jordan
said.

"It is quite another to begin compiling, analyzing, and addressing
evidence (pro and con) concerning the plaintiffs' allegations
without reciprocal discovery before those allegations have been
determined to be legally sufficient."

The court also noted that the plaintiffs have alleged that the
Pratt & Whitney plant sits above the same aquifer as The Acreage.

The plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to render plausible
that Pratt & Whitney contaminated their properties, the court
said.


USAA LIFE INSURANCE: "Saunders" Suit Removed to Texas Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action styled RICHARD SAUNDERS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. USAA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO.
5:14-CV-01868 EJD (N.D. Calif.), is removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas after Judge Edward J.
Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, determined that the
convenience and fairness considerations applicable to an analysis
under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), weigh in favor of transferring this
action to Texas.  A full-text copy of Judge Davila's Order dated
Oct. 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Ox66Kffrom
Leagle.com.

USAA Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by:

         Carol Lynn Thompson, Esq.
         SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
         555 California Street, Suite 2000
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Tel: (415) 772-1291
         Email: cthompson@sidley.com

            - and -

         Eric Stephen Mattson, Esq.
         Joel Steven Feldman, Esq.
         SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
         One South Dearborn
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Tel: (312) 853-4716
         Email: emattson@sidley.com
                jfeldman@sidley.com

            - and -

         Michael Douglas Mulvaney, Esq.
         MAYNARD COOPER AND GALE
         1901 Sixth Avenue North
         2400 Regions Harbert Plaza
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Tel: (205) 254-1076
         Fax: (205) 254-1999
         Email: mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com

            - and -

         Thomas Julian Butler, Esq.
         WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC


WELLS FARGO: Settles Mortgage Discrimination Suit for $5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that Wells Fargo
Home Mortgage on Oct. 9 agreed to pay $5 million to settle charges
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that it
discriminated against home-loan applicants who were pregnant or on
maternity leave.

The nation's largest mortgage provider, Wells Fargo allegedly
discriminated against new mothers by refusing to approve loans or
forcing them to "sacrifice their maternity leave and return to
work prior to closing on their loan," according to HUD.  The
concern was that the women would be unwilling or unable to return
to work after giving birth, or would not be able to afford
mortgage payments while on leave.

HUD took action on behalf of six families from across the nation -
- including Arizona, California, Nebraska, Nevada and Texas -- who
filed complaints.

"In many cases, it wasn't the family's credit or income that
stalled the loans -- it was simply the words 'maternity leave,'"
wrote HUD Secretary Julian Castro in a blog on the agency's
website.  "In settling these cases, HUD has been able to get
significant relief for families and also, just as important, to
change bank policies around the country."

Wells Fargo denied the charges and said it settled the case to
avoid a lengthy legal dispute.  "Our underwriting is consistent
with longstanding fair and responsible lending practices and our
policies do not require that applicants on temporary leave return
to work before being approved," wrote Tom Goyda, vice president of
consumer lending communications at Wells Fargo.  "HUD found no
violation of the Fair Housing Act or any other law by Wells Fargo.
The agreement resolves claims related to only five loan
applications from a period when Wells Fargo processed a total of
approximately 3 million applications from female customers."

Under the terms of the settlement, Wells Fargo will distribute a
total of $165,000 among the six families and create a fund with at
least $3.5 million to compensate other Wells Fargo applicants who
experienced similar discrimination.  The lender also agreed to
change its underwriting guidelines when it comes to evaluating
mortgage loan applications from those on maternity leave.
HUD has opened more than 15 maternity-leave discrimination
investigations in 2014, and investigated 170 complaints involving
maternity-leave discrimination allegations since 2010.


WYNN'S EXTENDED: Court Dismisses TCCWNA Claim in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint filed by defendants
in TIJUANA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WYNN'S EXTENDED CARE, INC. and
NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 12-CV-00079
(RMB/KMW), (D. N.J.).

This case was commenced in state court and removed to the federal
court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint asserted
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann.
Sections 56:8-1, et seq. (CFA), the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 56:12-
14, et seq. (TCCWNA), and the New Jersey Plain Language Act (the
PLA), N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 56:12-1, et seq. It also sought
declaratory and injunctive relief.  Initially, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which the Court
granted in part, dismissing the CFA and PLA claims as well as the
request for declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff
thereafter filed a Second Amended Complaint that asserts
violations of the CFA (Count I) and the TCCWNA (Count II).

In his opinion entered October 15, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/nr36R3from Leagle.com, Judge Bumb ruled
that the Defendant's motion to dismiss Count 1 (the CFA Count) is
granted, in part, and denied, in part. Defendants' motion to
dismiss Count 2 (the TCCWNA Count) is granted. The Court's prior
Opinion and Order, finding that Plaintiff stated a TCCWNA claim,
is vacated.

Kevin M. McKeon -- kmmckeon@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, PC, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Attorney
for Defendants.


WESTERN UNION: Judge Amends Order on Atty. Fees in Tennille Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John L. Kane issued an amended order on
October 15, 2014, modifying a magistrate judge's recommendation
regarding attorney's fees in JAMES P. TENNILLE, ROBERT SMET,
ADELAIDA DELEON and YAMILET RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE WESTERN UNION
COMPANY and WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants,
IVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-00938-JLK-KMT, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 10-CV-
00765-JLK, (D. Col.).

This nationwide class action was the subject of a global
settlement approved on June 24, 2013. Under the terms of the
settlement, Western Union agreed to disgorge all of the remaining
unclaimed wire transfer funds in its possession and deposit them
into a Class Settlement Fund (CSF) for disbursement to class
members. Western Union agreed to reimburse class members for the
time value of their unclaimed transfer funds withheld -- to the
tune of $19 million -- and to pay small incentive awards to
individual class representatives. Victory for class members and
current and future Western Union customers worldwide was virtually
complete. The question of attorney fees was cleaved from the
settlement, with the Agreement providing simply that Class Counsel
would "file an application" for reasonable attorney fees and case
expenses within 45 days of the final approval hearing.

Class Counsel filed its Motion for Approval of Attorney Fees,
Costs, and Expenses and for Approval of Incentive Awards on April
30, 2013, requesting a fee award equal to "30% of the Class
Settlement Fund as determined by the Court pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement" plus $7500 in incentive awards for
individual class representatives. The request met with opposition.
Western Union also sought to strike the affidavits of Plaintiffs'
forensic accountant, R. Larry Johnson, and class action specialist
Brian T. Fitzpatrick, "and all references in the Fees Motion to
either."

The Court referred the Motion for Fees, the related Responses and
Objections, and the Motion to Strike to Magistrate Judge Tafoya
for recommendation. In a written decision dated December 31, 2013,
the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Strike, considered the
subject affidavits, and recommended a fee award of $22,946,208 --
less than half the amount Class Counsel requested.  Both sides
were unhappy with the Recommendation. Plaintiffs challenged the
decision.

In the amended order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/H7q32efrom Leagle.com, Judge Kane ruled that the
Class Counsel's motion for attorney fees is granted. Western
Union's motion to strike the affidavits of Messrs. Fitzpatrick and
Johnson and request for attorney fees is denied.  Class Counsel's
motion to strike the expert opinions of Professor Shavell and
Michael J. Gallagher is denied as moot.

Judge Kane further ordered Class Counsel and Western Union to
confer, and for the Class Counsel to prepare a proposed order
awarding Counsel's requested fees, costs, and incentive payments
for the Court's signature.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Interested Party, represented by
Gillian R. Feiner, Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.


ZIMMER: MDL Plaintiffs Want Judge to Impose Spoliation Sanctions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs who claim medical device maker Zimmer sold them faulty
hip replacements are asking a federal judge in Newark to impose
spoliation sanctions against the company for allegedly destroying
5,500 examples of the device at issue.

The motion claims Zimmer destroyed or disposed of surplus Durom
Cup Acetabular Component hip-replacement products sometime after
the first suit over that component was filed in 2008.  The
plaintiffs sought to examine copies of the device but the company
maintained it had only five new and unused devices in its
possession, and it turned over two to the plaintiffs for testing.

The Oct. 15 spoliation motion comes after experts for Zimmer
criticized tests performed by plaintiffs experts on the two Durom
Cup hip-replacement devices because of the small sample size.

The plaintiffs seek an order restricting Zimmer's counsel, as well
as its fact and expert witnesses, from attacking the scientific
validity of tests performed by the plaintiffs' experts based on
the small sample size.  The plaintiffs also are asking for a
spoliation instruction to be made so that the jury may infer that
Zimmer failed to preserve the devices out of the well-founded fear
that it would be harmed in the litigation by testing of its
product by plaintiffs' experts.

The spoliation motion cites a July 2008 report filed by Zimmer
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, indicating it had sold
at least 24,235 of the Durom Cup device.  The company reported
selling 18,691 Durom Cup devices, leaving a surplus of at least
5.544 devices.  The first products liability suit concerning the
Durom Cup was filed Oct. 17, 2008, according to the motion.
Zimmer's duty to preserve evidence was reasonably foreseeable as
of that date, the motion says.

Roughly 309 cases are pending in the Zimmer multidistrict
litigation before U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton in Newark,
down from a historical peak of 455 cases, according to an Oct. 15
report by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

The suits bring claims for failure to warn, defective design and
breach of warranty.  The suits claim the Durom Cup can loosen and
separate from the patient's hip socket, causing extreme pain and
necessitating additional surgery.

The plaintiffs first brought their spoliation motion March 20,
stating that they could anticipate Zimmer's attack on any testing
results based on the small sample size.  U.S. Magistrate Judge
Madeline Cox Arleo tabled the motion, advising the parties that
the spoliation issue could be revisited, according to the
plaintiffs' Oct. 15 brief.

Since the motion was tabled, three experts for Zimmer have issued
reports saying the tests conducted by plaintiffs expert James
Grimes were invalid because they only involved two Durom Cups.
Those criticisms "ignore that Zimmer's failure to preserve
evidence is the sole reason why the sample size was as small as it
was," the plaintiffs' brief says.

On Sept. 17, plaintiffs wrote to counsel for Zimmer, offering to
refrain from refiling the spoliation motion if the defendant would
agree that its counsel and experts would not criticize their
expert's report based on sample size, and if it would agree to a
jury instruction allowing jurors to infer from Zimmer's failure to
account for the missing devices that further testing would have
been unfavorable to Zimmer.  Zimmer rejected the offer and told
the plaintiffs to proceed with the spoliation motion, according to
the motion.

George Tankard III of Waters, Kraus & Paul in Baltimore,
representing the plaintiffs, did not return a call.  Nor did
Zimmer's lawyers, Edward Fanning Jr. -- efanning@mccarter.com --
of McCarter & English in Newark and J. Joseph Tanner --
joe.tanner@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels in
Indianapolis.


* Banks Seek Exemption From FTC's Robocall Rules
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that the American
Bankers Association has called on the Federal Communications
Commission to eliminate telemarketing restrictions that pose
"unreasonable and excessive litigation risks" to banks, as they
try to send automated notifications to their customers about data
breaches and fraud.

In a petition filed with the FCC on Oct. 14, the ABA said banks
can deliver messages about fraud and breaches "most efficiently
and reliably" through automated messages to their customers'
phones, many of which are mobile.  But under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which Congress approved in 1991 to curb
telemarketers, callers must receive the prior express consent of
the individuals they wish to send automated messages, in order to
deliver those communications.  The FCC should exempt banks from
this requirement when they're sending data security alerts, the
ABA said.

Banks' interest and the capability in delivering these messages is
"severely hampered" by the threat of class action lawsuits that
allege TCPA violations, the association said.


* SEC's Enforcement Division Head Defends Broken-Windows Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Legal Times, reports that U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Division head
Andrew Ceresney on Oct. 14 defended the agency's "broken windows"
policy of cracking down on minor violations during a panel
discussion with five former directors of the division, who argued
the agency is being too harsh.

The message from SEC staff is "any violation and you're in the
soup," said Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner William
McLucas -- william.mclucas@wilmerhale.com -- who led the
Enforcement Division from 1989 to 1998.  "There's zero tolerance."

The remarks came during the Securities Enforcement Forum in
Washington, where last year SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White
introduced the broken-windows concept.  "The theory is that when a
window is broken and someone fixes it, it is a sign that disorder
will not be tolerated," she said.  "But when a broken window is
not fixed, it is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more
windows costs nothing.  The same theory can be applied to our
securities markets -- minor violations that are overlooked or
ignored can feed bigger ones."

Mr. Ceresney elaborated on how the theory has been put into
practice.  "It's not about turning every violation into an
enforcement action," he said.  "What it's about is targeting
important rules [where] we've seen a pattern of lack of
compliance," and using the cases "to send a strong message about
the need for compliance."

For example, he said, executives and corporate insiders need to
file paperwork about buying and selling securities in their
companies.  "That's critical to investors," he said.  In
September, the SEC charged 28 officers, directors or major
shareholders with failing to promptly report information about
their holdings and transactions.

"It is not about stepping away from the larger, more intent-based
violations. In fact, to the contrary," Mr. Ceresney said.  "That's
what we're trying to foster, a broad sense that there needs to be
compliance across the board."

But Davis Polk & Wardwell partner Linda Chatman Thomsen --
linda.thomsen@davispolk.com -- who was enforcement director from
2005 to 2009, questioned whether the punishments fit the crime.

"Are the sanctions and reactions responsive to the underlying
conduct?" she asked.  "There was a time when if you came in and
said 'I missed a filing,' someone would say 'Correct the filing,'
" she continued.  "Then there was a time when something might
happen, but it wouldn't involve a penalty. Now we're seeing
matters where they truly look like, relatively speaking, modest
violations with, relatively speaking, large sanctions.  And that,
to a certain extent, that may backfire in terms of encouraging
cooperation . . . because the reaction is disproportionate."

Mr. McLucas agreed, noting that the cases involve people who are
"not a threat to the markets, didn't steal, didn't commit fraud,
but they're going to get named," he said.  "The perception out
here in this environment is if you catch one that doesn't meet the
six-inch test, you don't throw it back."

Former U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin, who headed the
Enforcement Division from 1974 to 1981, didn't see it that way.
"I don't know why this is news," he said.  "You go back to my day,
you can't be a law enforcement commission if you don't enforce the
rules.  If you've got to comply, you've got to comply, that's all
there is to it."

He turned to Mr. McLucas, who joined the SEC in 1977 under
Sporkin.  "We even brought a failure-to-file [Rule] 16a case
criminally, remember that, the Friedman case?"

"I've erased it from my memory," Mr. McLucas said to laughter.
"Whose side are you on here? [Ceresney] doesn't need any
encouragement."


* Vaccine Cases Still Fill Washington D.C. Special Court's Docket
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
as the antivaccination movement grows -- and with it, outbreaks of
diseases such as whooping cough, mumps and measles -- the eight
special masters at the so-called vaccine court within the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims are under increasing pressure.  What was
intended to be a quick and easy program for awarding compensation
when it was created 28 years ago has become markedly adversarial,
with dueling medical experts offering complex theories about
injuries caused by vaccines.

To some, the court is a failure, an experiment in no-fault tort
reform gone awry.  "I'm so disappointed in it," said Michael Hugo
-- mhugo@kbadvocates.com -- senior litigation counsel to Khorrami
Boucher's Boston office.  In 1986, he lobbied alongside
pharmaceutical companies to pass the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act, which created the vaccine compensation program.  Now,
he said, "it makes me sick to try to do these cases because I've
seen how bad it has become."

The fight these days isn't about autism, at least not much.  In
2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld two
decisions by special masters rejecting a causal connection between
vaccines and autism.  Since then, 4,926 of 5,637 autism cases have
been dismissed by the vaccine court, according David Bowman, a
spokesman for the Health Resources and Services Administration.
The court "has not compensated any cases based upon autism alone
in the absence of sudden serious brain illness after vaccination,"
he wrote in an email.

But hundreds of cases alleging other injuries fill the docket.  In
fiscal year 2014, which ended on Sept. 30, the court's special
masters handed out $202 million to 365 vaccine injury victims,
plus another $21 million in attorney fees, most of it for cases
brought by people who had bad reactions to flu shots.  In many
instances, they developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome, in which the
immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and
sometimes paralysis.

Still, plaintiffs lawyers acknowledge that vaccines are rarely
dangerous.  "I always say to everyone the risk is infinitesimal.
If you give a million of anything to anyone, someone will have an
adverse reaction," said Peter Meyers, who directs the Vaccine
Injury Clinic at George Washington University Law School.

For example, since 2006 the fund has paid 831 claims stemming from
the flu vaccine, "far more than for any other vaccination," Bowman
said.  "This isn't surprising though."  That's because during that
same period, 944 million people got flu shots.

Neither do lawyers in the small bar that practices before the
court come across as antivaccine.  Many said they've vaccinated
their own children, or would do so if they had them.  "People
should get vaccines," said Renee Gentry, president of the Vaccine
Injured Petitioners Bar Association.  "But [vaccines] should be as
safe as possible."

NECESSARY PROOF

For the court, the key point of contention is what proof is
necessary to show that a vaccine caused a person's injury.
It wasn't supposed to be difficult.  The National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program was originally created as a bailout for
pharmaceutical companies, which during the 1980s were being
hammered in court by juries sympathetic to brain-damaged children,
even if the vaccine makers had properly produced the product.  By
the end of 1984, only one company was still making the diphtheria-
tetanus-pertussis vaccine and shortages loomed.

Congress responded with legislation that made it practically
impossible to sue drug companies over adverse vaccine reactions.
The 1986 vaccine act mandated that all cases must be first brought
in the newly created forum, a component of the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, whose judges review the special masters'
decisions.  The secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, represented by the Department of Justice, serves
as the defendant and a 75 cents-per-vaccine tax covers the
payouts.  Today, the trust fund has a surplus of about $3.5
billion.

There are no punitive damages, and awards for pain and suffering
or death are capped at $250,000, unchanged since the legislation
was passed.  However, awards covering lifetime medical care and
lost wages can easily top $10 million.

"Since the vaccine program's inception, nearly $3 billion has been
awarded by special masters to petitioners," Lisa Reyes, chief
deputy clerk of the Court of Federal Claims, wrote in an email.
"In contrast and as expressed by a former president of the Vaccine
Injured Petitioners Bar Association, most vaccine program
petitioners are unlikely to have received any compensation through
the traditional civil court system."

VIPBA's Ms. Gentry, a partner at Shoemaker, Gentry & Knickelbein,
said it's not so simple.  "Under the current state of the law,
individuals injured by covered vaccines have little or no chance
of success in the civil arena, nor do they even have access to it
unless they go through this program first and lose or, rarer
still, win and reject their award," she said.

In almost all circumstances, the plaintiffs' legal costs are
directly paid by the trust fund regardless of whether the claim
succeeds or fails.  The court recently approved rates of $275 to
$413 per hour for Washington, D.C., lawyers, though bills are
subject to intense scrutiny.

More important, Congress created a table of injuries associated
with vaccines.  To win money, plaintiffs simply had to show they
were administered the vaccine and experienced a recognized adverse
reaction within the relevant time, for example, developing chronic
arthritis within seven to 42 days after getting a vaccine
containing the rubella virus.

"The table was designed by Congress to resolve close calls of
vaccine causation in favor of petitioners.  It was based on
existing science at the time and, if there was a doubt, the table
decided the causation issue in the petitioner's favor," said
Gary Golkiewicz, who served as chief special master of the court
from the day it opened its doors in 1988 until 2010, retiring in
2012.  "The table worked as Congress intended."

In the beginning, 90 percent of the cases involved table injuries.
Hearings lasted a few hours and there was little need for expert
witnesses.  But in 1995, the HHS revised the table, eliminating
some injuries and narrowing others. Furthermore, while nine new
vaccines such as human papillomavirus have been added to the table
over the years, no corresponding injuries (other than immediate
anaphylactic shock) accompany any of the listings.  However,
lawyers say Guillain-Barre Syndrome is likely to be added soon for
the flu vaccine.

MORE PROOF NEEDED

Today, 98 percent of the cases do not involve table injuries,
according to Reyes of the Court of Federal Claims.  As a result,
the cases are significantly more challenging, requiring plaintiffs
lawyers to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the vaccine
caused the person's injury.  Experts in areas such as genetics and
neurology, in which considerable scientific uncertainty remains,
are essential to winning cases.

"It was supposed to be a friendly, fast alternative program that
didn't require the protections plaintiffs would have in civil
litigation," such as discovery or trial by jury, Ms. Gentry said.
"It's the complete opposite."

Nonetheless, most people who bring claims get some money. Between
May and August 2014, for example, 104 of 152 petitioners got an
award through a settlement or a decision on the merits, according
to the most recent Justice Department statistics.

Danielle Strait, a vaccine injury attorney at Maglio Christopher &
Toale who spent three years working at the court as a clerk, said
that "a lot of the claims settle for peanuts," with amounts
ranging from several thousands to $30,000.  "It misses the mark at
being a kinder, gentler program than civil litigation," she said.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Study Seeks to Track Ambler's Fibro Legacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
FindLaw.com reported that Joe Amento, a lifelong resident of
Ambler, was 53 when he died of a rare cancer with one main
cause -- exposure to asbestos.

He was fine at Christmas 2002. In January, a pain in his side kept
him awake at night. He was found to have the disease in March.
Before August, he was gone.

He left a wife, two children, and a community that to this day
wrestles with the uncertain legacy of the huge asbestos factories
that once brought the town jobs and prosperity, then sickness and
death.

Amento never worked in the factories. He simply lived nearby. But
his father, like many, found a job there as a young Italian
immigrant.

Although the last factory closed decades ago, the piles of
asbestos waste have remained in what are now two Superfund sites.

Even as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitors the
completed cleanup at one site, and heavy machinery growls as it
progresses at the second, many in the community remain edgy.

Mesothelioma has a 40-year latency period -- the time between
exposure and sickness. So people who have lived or worked just
blocks away wonder: "Am I going to get sick?"

The University of Pennsylvania's Center of Excellence in
Environmental Toxicology has received a $10 million federal grant
to seek answers.

Over four years, researchers from genetics to chemistry will study
how people are exposed. They will investigate why some get
mesothelioma and others don't. Is there a genetic component?

Ultimately, is there a way to test individuals before symptoms
even arise? Can it be prevented?

"If we answer those questions, it will have a significant impact
on human health, generalizable to everyone who is exposed to
asbestos," said pharmacologist Ian Blair, director of Penn's new
Superfund center.

This is the first research program that tackles the problem of
asbestos with an interdisciplinary team, "and the synergy there
will solve some sticky problems," said William Suk, director of
the Superfund research program within the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, which awarded the grant.

"There are some significant public health concerns," he said. "If
it wasn't as complex as it is, it would already be done."

When the first of Ambler's factories began making asbestos
insulation in 1897, little was known -- or later acknowledged --
about the harm the tiny fibers could do to the human lungs.

As time passed, the piles of asbestos-containing waste outside the
plants grew so high that people dubbed them the white mountains of
Ambler. One topped out at 92 feet.

Even in summer, children sledded down the hills on flattened
cardboard boxes. The area was a magnet for kids with bikes. Joe
Amento was among them, said his brother, Pete.

The two sites total about 55 acres, a big chunk of land in the
small, quaint town of Ambler, which was built around the factories
as workers moved in.

A municipal park was once built atop the second site. It later was
closed.

Even today, playgrounds, backyards, and businesses are less than a
block away. That big hill behind the McDonald's on West Butler
Pike near the train station? It's a dirt-encased pile that
contains asbestos.

It seemed every family knew someone who had a lung disease. Joe
Amento's father died of asbestosis. His mother died of COPD,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In a recent analysis covering 1992 to 2008, health officials found
that the Ambler zip code had 28 cases of mesothelioma rather than
the expected nine for a population of its size -- about 30,000.

Presumably, there would have been even more when the factories
were operating, said Lora Siegmann Werner, a representative of the
federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

And that was only the cancer data. Officials would expect a larger
number of less severe cases of asbestosis or COPD.

The data also would not have captured people who lived in Ambler
but moved away and died in a different zip code.

So one of the Penn projects will involve poring over census and
real estate records and interviewing current residents to track
down their former neighbors.

"This has never really been properly done for a community," said
Edward Emmett, an occupational and environmental medicine
specialist at Penn. "We're getting to the edge of memories, but we
think we can capture it."

Another surprising trend arose from the data: The rate of
mesothelioma in Ambler was greater for women than for men.

Presumably, men in the factories would have had higher
occupational exposure. Women would have been exposed to a lesser
degree by, say, asbestos dust brought home on their husbands'
clothes.

And what of those who merely lived nearby?

To get answers, researchers need to know who was exposed. So Blair
will look for a molecular needle in a haystack -- an exposure
biomarker.

New instruments allow them to examine the serum of people they
know were exposed -- one batch is from Philadelphia dockworkers --
seeking subtle differences among complicated molecules. "That's a
challenge," he said. "How can you tell from this morass of data
what is different and why?"

Next, are there substances that might prevent mesothelioma? The
team will use mice to test antioxidants and other compounds.

Further, can they develop a blood test for mesothelioma so people
could seek early treatment?

Ultimately, Blair said, "we see this as a prototype" that would be
applicable to other cancers.

Another distinction of the project is that it begins not with
researchers' questions but the public's questions, which Emmett
conceded could have more value "in the real world."

A community advisory group the EPA formed in 2007 has no shortage
of questions.

Its cochair Bob Adams said that its roughly two dozen members have
"every range of opinions you can imagine." Meetings "can get
pretty hot," he said. "That's good. That's the democratic
process."

But he says most feel "really positive" about the Penn project. "A
lot of the questions they are looking at are things we have been
asking for years."

Air tests show no elevated levels of asbestos now.

Even so, community members worry about past exposure. "The latency
period ought to be kicking in," Adams said.

As director of stewardship with the Wissahickon Valley Watershed
Association, Adams has worked across the Wissahickon Creek from
the site for 16 years. "There's asbestos washing off that site,
down the creek. . . . If they can find a marker for that disease,
I'd be willing to be part of that study."

Even as the cleanup progresses, the researchers hope to answer one
final question: Will the work be protective enough for the people
of Ambler?

So far, entombment has been the basic plan. "Our whole approach to
these piles is to cover and contain, so asbestos has no avenue to
get into the water or air," said Jim Feeney, the EPA's remedial
project manager for Ambler Asbestos Piles, as the first site is
known.

The EPA will have to monitor the dirt-covered mounds indefinitely
to ensure that fallen trees, groundhog holes, and other
disturbances to the soil barrier have not exposed the asbestos
underneath.

Likewise, excavation at the second site, BoRit, was ruled out as
too dangerous and too costly. One calculation held that removing
all the waste would require a truckload every 25 minutes for 10
years, Emmett said. And what about the safety concerns, the noise,
the diesel emissions?

Not everyone is appeased. Borough council member Sharon McCormick,
who got into politics because of her objection to what was
happening at the sites, insists: "It's not dangerous to remove it.
It's dangerous here. . . . EPA calls this a cleanup. It's not.
They're throwing dirt on it."

Pete Amento, also a borough council member, is OK with the plan.
"If every 20 to 30 years they have to put more dirt on it and hide
the piles, that's what they should be doing."

McCormick says more sites exist, although her barrage of photos,
reports, and other materials has not convinced the EPA.

But the authorities have been wrong before. They initially
disregarded the BoRit site, only to reconsider amid public outcry
over a developer's plans to level the hill, cap it, and build a
17-story condo.

McCormick calls Ambler's asbestos legacy "the elephant in the
room." Some wish she would just be quiet. Others thank her for
speaking up.

So far, the EPA has spent $26.8 million on the two sites. Although
some costs have been recovered -- the sites have gone through
multiple owners and a bankruptcy -- some in the community fault
the EPA for not going after what are called "potentially
responsible parties" more vigorously.

Ambler Asbestos, as the first site is called, is considered
remediated and was removed from Superfund's priority list in 1996.

The "emergency response" to BoRit is expected to be completed by
next fall. No long-term remedy has been determined, the EPA said.

Helping formulate one will be another task of the Penn initiative,
Blair said. Researchers will investigate whether asbestos is
moving from the site and, if so, how does it move? Where does it
go?

One of the projects that the NIEHS's Suk finds tantalizing will
explore whether a promising-looking fungus will be able to break
down the asbestos and make it less toxic.

Meanwhile, the hill at Ambler Asbestos Piles has been planted with
trees.

The hill at BoRit sports a froth of wildflowers.

At its base, a reservoir rumored to hold sunken trucks -- it
turned out to be only a few feet deep -- was drained so the banks
can be stabilized and covered. Refilled, it will be a waterfowl
preserve.

Just outside the fence line of the Ambler site, one original
building, its smokestack intact, has been rehabbed into
environmentally certified offices.

But most of the property, Feeney said, presents "very limited
options" for reuse. "Nothing can disturb the constructed remedy,"
he said.

The more public use, the better, Adams said, although a playground
likely would be ruled out.

"One of the things that really galls people" is that both sites
are sitting on valuable real estate, he said. "The town gets no
benefit. If we can get this safely cleaned up and made into a
resource, that would be the best possible outcome."

These days, Pete Amento emphasizes how safe the bustling community
of Ambler is. "There is nothing to be afraid about," he said.
"Ambler is a sought-after community."

His brother's widow, Marilyn Amento, settled a lawsuit for an
undisclosed sum and now works with the Asbestos Disease Awareness
Organization, an advocacy nonprofit.

She wrestles with her opinions -- and her emotions. "I don't like
talking about it too much," she said of her husband's death. "That
doesn't mean I don't love him dearly. . . . He was such a good
man."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco To Contribute $325MM to Yarway Fibro Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd., on October 9, 2014, agreed to contribute
a total of $325 million in cash to the Section 524(g) trust
created for the resolution and payment of asbestos claims against
Yarway Corporation, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2014.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway
Corporation and Grinnell LLC, along with numerous other third
parties, are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based
on alleged exposure to asbestos containing materials. Over 90% of
cases pending against affiliates of Tyco International Ltd. have
been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have typically involved
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos-containing
components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from Yarway's
purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing in the
sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its
alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint
packing. Yarway's alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of
asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased
substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales
operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege
that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping
and sprinkler systems containing asbestos.

On April 22, 2013 Yarway filed a voluntary petition for relief
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter 11") in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  As a
result of this filing, the continuation or commencement of
asbestos-related litigation against Yarway has been enjoined by
the automatic stay imposed by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Yarway's
goal has been to negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a
plan of reorganization that establishes a trust to fairly and
equitably value and pay current and future Yarway asbestos claims,
and that, in exchange for funding of the trust by the Company
and/or its subsidiaries, provides permanent injunctive relief
protecting the Company, each of its current and former affiliates
and various other parties (the "Company Protected Parties") from
any further asbestos claims based on products manufactured, sold,
and/or distributed by Yarway. On October 9, 2014, the Company
reached an agreement in principle with Yarway, the Official
Committee of Asbestos Claimants appointed in the Yarway Chapter 11
case as the representative of current Yarway asbestos claimants,
and the Future Claimants Representative appointed in the Yarway
Chapter 11 case as the representative of future Yarway asbestos
claimants, to fund a section 524(g) trust for the resolution and
payment of current and future Yarway asbestos claims.

The agreement in principle, which will be implemented through a
Chapter 11 plan for Yarway, will resolve the potential liability
of the Company Protected Parties for pending and future derivative
personal injury claims related to exposure to asbestos-containing
products that were allegedly manufactured, distributed, and/or
sold by Yarway.  Under the Chapter 11 plan, an asbestos settlement
trust that conforms to the provisions of Section 524(g) of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code will be established and, on the effective
date of the Chapter 11 plan, the Company and Yarway will
contribute to the Yarway Trust a total of $325 million in cash,
which includes approximately $100 million relating to the
settlement of intercompany amounts allegedly due to Yarway.

In exchange for the Settlement Consideration, each of the Company
Protected Parties will receive the benefit of a release from
Yarway and an injunction under section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code permanently enjoining the assertion of Yarway Asbestos Claims
against those Parties. The agreement in principle is subject,
among other things, to the negotiation and filing of a Chapter 11
plan of reorganization for Yarway incorporating the terms of such
agreement, acceptance of the Plan by at least 75% of Yarway's
current asbestos claimants voting on such Plan, confirmation of
the Plan by the Bankruptcy Court and approval of the injunction in
favor of the Company Protected Parties by the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.  On the effective
date of the Plan, which is anticipated to occur in the second half
of fiscal 2015, the Company and Yarway will pay the Settlement
Consideration and Yarway Asbestos Claims against the Company
Protected Parties will be permanently enjoined. Yarway is
anticipated to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Yarway
Trust and, accordingly, would no longer be owned by or be part of
a consolidated group with the Company. Unless extended by a
further agreement, the agreement in principle will expire if the
order confirming the Plan and implementing the injunction has not
been entered or affirmed by the District Court by April 30, 2015,
or if the effective date of the Plan has not occurred by September
15, 2016. As a result of the agreement in principle to settle, the
Company has recorded a charge of $225 million during the fourth
fiscal quarter of 2014.

As a result of filing the voluntary bankruptcy petition during the
third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company recorded an expected
loss upon deconsolidation of $10 million related to the Yarway
Chapter 11 filing, which continues to represent the Company's best
estimate of its loss.

The Company continuously assesses the sufficiency of its estimated
liability for pending and future asbestos claims and defense
costs. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates actual
experience regarding asbestos claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements, and the recoverability of its
insurance assets. If and when data from actual experience
demonstrate an unfavorable discernible trend, the Company performs
a valuation of its asbestos related liabilities and corresponding
insurance assets including a comprehensive review of the
underlying assumptions. In addition, the Company evaluates its
ability to reasonably estimate claim activity beyond its current
look-forward period in order to assess whether such period is
appropriate. In addition to claims and litigation experience, the
Company considers additional qualitative and quantitative factors
such as changes in legislation, the legal environment, the
Company's strategy in managing claims and obtaining insurance,
including its defense strategy, and health related trends in the
overall population of individuals potentially exposed to asbestos.
The Company evaluates all of these factors and determines whether
a change in the estimate of its liability for pending and future
claims and defense costs or insurance assets is warranted.

During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company concluded
that an unfavorable trend had developed in actual claim filing
activity compared to projected claim filing activity established
during the Company's most recent valuation. Accordingly, the
Company, with the assistance of independent actuarial service
providers, performed a revised valuation of its asbestos-related
liabilities and corresponding insurance assets. As part of the
revised valuation, the Company assessed whether a change in its
look-forward period was appropriate, taking into consideration its
more extensive history and experience with asbestos-related claims
and litigation (including its experience with Yarway), and
determined that it was now possible to make a reasonable estimate
of the actuarially determined ultimate risk of loss for pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos-related claims through
2056. In connection with the revised valuation, the Company
considered a recent settlement with one of its insurers calling
for the establishment of a qualified settlement fund, and the
results of a separate independent actuarial consulting firm report
conducted in the fourth quarter to assist the Company in obtaining
insurance to fully fund all estimable asbestos-related claims
(excluding Yarway claims) incurred through 2056.

The independent actuarial service firm calculated a total
estimated liability for asbestos-related claims of the Company,
which reflects the Company's best estimate of its ultimate risk of
loss to resolve all pending and future claims (excluding Yarway
claims) through 2056, which is the Company's reasonable best
estimate of the actuarially determined time period through which
asbestos-related claims will be filed against Company affiliates.

In conjunction with determining the total estimated liability, the
Company retained an independent third party to assist it in
valuing its insurance assets responsive to asbestos-related
claims, excluding Yarway claims. These insurance assets represent
amounts due to the Company for previously settled claims and the
probable reimbursements relating to its total liability for
pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims and
defense costs. In calculating this amount, the Company used the
estimated asbestos liability for pending and projected future
claims and defense costs, and it also considered the amount of
insurance available, the solvency risk with respect to the
Company's insurance carriers, resolution of insurance coverage
issues, gaps in coverage, allocation methodologies, and the terms
of existing settlement agreements with insurance carriers.

As a result of the described activity,  the Company recorded a net
charge, in addition to the amounts for Yarway, of $240 million
during the quarter ended September 26, 2014. Although the
Company's methodology established a range of estimates of
reasonably possible outcomes, the Company recorded its best
estimate within such range based upon currently known information.
The Company's estimated gross asbestos liability, excluding
Yarway, of $538 million was recorded within the Company's
Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending and future
claims and related defense costs, and separately as an asset for
insurance recoveries of $245 million. The total estimated
liability is on a pre-tax basis, not discounted for the time-value
of money, and includes defense costs, which is consistent with the
Company's historical accounting practices.

The amounts recorded by the Company for asbestos-related
liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on the
Company's strategies for resolving its asbestos claims, currently
available information, and a number of estimates and assumptions.
Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new
claims that are filed each year, the average cost of resolution of
claims, the identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage
issues with insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the
solvency risk with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.
Many of these factors are closely linked, such that a change in
one variable or assumption will impact one or more of the others,
and no single variable or assumption predominately influences the
determination of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets. Furthermore, predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later
portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect
the Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related
matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms
of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of
insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher
or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's
calculations vary significantly from actual results.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company resolved
disputes with certain of its historical insurers and agreed that
certain insurance proceeds will be used to establish and fund a
qualified settlement fund, within the meaning of the Internal
Revenue Code, which will be used for the resolution of asbestos
liabilities of the Company, other than Yarway asbestos claims. It
is intended that the QSF will receive future insurance payments
and proceeds from third party insurers and, in addition, will fund
and manage liabilities for certain historical operations of the
Company. In addition, the Company expects to make cash
contributions to the QSF structure within the next 12 months of
approximately $275 million to purchase insurance that will be
dedicated to, and is expected to fully fund, these liabilities.

A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at:

                       http://is.gd/MVOPB3

Tyco International Ltd. (Tyco) is a diversified company, which
provides security products and services, fire protection and
detection products and services, valves and controls, and other
industrial products. It operates in five segments: ADT Worldwide,
Flow Control, Fire Protection Services, Electrical and Metal
Products, and Safety Products. During the fiscal year ended
September 24, 2010, the Company's Flow Control segment acquired
two Brazilian valve companies, including Hiter Industria e
Comercio de Controle Termo-Hidraulico Ltda (Hiter), a valve
manufacturer which serves a variety of industries, including the
oil and gas, chemical and petrochemical markets. In May 2014, the
Company announced that it has completed the sale of Tyco Fire &
Security Services Korea Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries that form
and operate the South Korean security business to The Carlyle
Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $933-Mil. NARCO Fibro Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc.'s asbestos liability relating to
North American Refractories Company (NARCO) was $933 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies,
Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos. We did not mine or produce asbestos, nor did we make or
sell insulation products or other construction materials that have
been identified as the primary cause of asbestos related disease
in the vast majority of claimants.

"Honeywell's predecessors owned North American Refractories
Company (NARCO) from 1979 to 1986. NARCO produced refractory
products (bricks and cement used in high temperature
applications). We sold the NARCO business in 1986 and agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as defined
in the sale agreement). NARCO retained all liability for all other
claims. NARCO and/or Honeywell are defendants in asbestos personal
injury cases asserting claims based upon alleged exposure to NARCO
asbestos-containing products. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing
refractory products in an occupational setting. These claims, and
the filing of subsequent claims, were stayed continuously since
January 4, 2002, the date on which NARCO sought bankruptcy
protection.

"As of September 30, 2014, the NARCO asbestos related liability
was $933 million.

"On January 4, 2002, NARCO filed a petition for reorganization
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In connection with
the filing of NARCO's petition in 2002, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("the Bankruptcy Court")
issued an injunction staying the prosecution of NARCO-related
asbestos claims against the Company, which stayed in place
throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case. In November 2007, the
Bankruptcy Court confirmed NARCO's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization (NARCO Plan of Reorganization) and it became fully
effective on April 30, 2013.

"In connection with implementation of the NARCO Plan of
Reorganization, a federally authorized 524(g) trust was
established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and
future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are
protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust will
review submitted claims and determine award amounts in accordance
with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the
Bankruptcy Court which set forth all criteria claimants must meet
to qualify for compensation including, among other things,
exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In
addition, Honeywell will continue to provide input to the detailed
controls design of the NARCO Trust, and has on-going audit rights
to review and monitor claims processors' adherence to the
established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures and
as a means of detecting and deterring irregularities in claims.

"In connection with NARCO's bankruptcy filing, Honeywell agreed to
certain obligations which were triggered upon the effective date
of the NARCO Plan of Reorganization. As agreed, during the second
quarter of 2013, we provided NARCO with $17 million in financing
and simultaneously forgave such indebtedness. We also paid $40
million to NARCO's former parent company and $16 million to
certain asbestos claimants whose claims were fully resolved during
the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings.

"Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution
Procedures, subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years
2014 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter,
provided, however, that the first $100 million of claims processed
through the NARCO Trust (the "Initial Claims Amount") will not
count against the first year annual cap and any unused portion of
the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until
fully utilized. As of September 30, 2014, Honeywell has not made
any payments to the NARCO Trust for these claims.

"Honeywell will also be responsible for the following funding
obligations which are not subject to the annual cap: a) previously
approved payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement
agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy
proceedings which provide that a portion of these settlements is
to be paid by the NARCO Trust, which amounts are estimated at $130
million and are expected to be paid during the first year of trust
operations ($91 million of which was paid in 2013 and $20 million
of which was paid in the first nine months of 2014 with an
additional $2 million of which has been approved and will be paid
in the fourth quarter of 2014) and, b) payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under
the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria, which amounts are estimated at $150 million
and are expected to be paid during the first two years of trust
operations (as of September 30, 2014 there have been no payments,
however, $3 million is expected to be paid in the fourth quarter
of 2014).

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for the amounts discussed, unsettled claims pending as
of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and for the
estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be
asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018. In light of the
uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in
connection with the initial operation of a 524(g) trust, as well
as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place
throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have
a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond
2018. In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base
the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value, including
trust claim handling costs, of asbestos related future liabilities
based on Company specific and general asbestos claims filing
rates, expected rates of disease and anticipated claim values.
Specifically, the valuation methodology included an analysis of
the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos containing
products, epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos related diseases, NARCO asbestos claims
filing history, general asbestos claims filing rates in the tort
system and in certain operating asbestos trusts, and the claims
experience in those forums, the pending inventory of NARCO
asbestos claims, disease criteria and payment values contained in
the Trust Distribution Procedures and an estimated approval rate
of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust. This methodology used to
estimate the liability for future claims has been commonly
accepted by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts
and resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 million to
$961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a
better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have
recorded the minimum amount in the range.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct
analyses to determine the amount of insurance that we estimate is
probable of recovery in relation to payment of current and
estimated future claims. While the substantial majority of our
insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers. In the second quarter of 2014 the
Company collected $130 million in connection with a receivable due
from one of its insurance carriers.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. There is no
assurance that insurance recoveries will be timely or whether
there will be any NARCO-related asbestos claims beyond 2018. Given
the inherent uncertainty in predicting future events, we review
our estimates periodically, and update them based on our
experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will
reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance
recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or
other developments that may impact insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified
technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four
business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions,
Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation
Systems. In July 2014, the Company announced that it has completed
the sale of its Friction Materials (FM) business to Federal-Mogul.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 11,352 Pending Bendix Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 11,352 unresolved asbestos claims related to Honeywell
International Inc.'s Bendix friction materials business, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

Honeywell's Bendix friction materials (Bendix) business
manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile
asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from
either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

As of September 30, 2014, the Bendix asbestos related liability
was $660 million.

For the nine-months ended September 30, 2014, there were 11,352
unresolved Bendix-related asbestos claims.

It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or
stabilize in the future.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually
filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix-
related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future
claims using average resolution values for the previous five
years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost
of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each
year.

"The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the future
NARCO-related asbestos claims liability.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and
our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with
our insurers.

"On a cumulative historical basis, Honeywell has recorded
insurance receivables equal to approximately 35 percent of the
value of the underlying asbestos claims recorded. However, because
there are gaps in our coverage due to insurance company
insolvencies, certain uninsured periods, and insurance
settlements, this rate is expected to decline for any future
Bendix-related asbestos liabilities that may be recorded. Future
recoverability rates may also be impacted by numerous other
factors, such as future insurance settlements, insolvencies and
judicial determinations relevant to our coverage program, which
are difficult to predict. Assuming continued defense and indemnity
spending at current levels, we estimate that the cumulative
recoverability rate could decline over the next five years to
approximately 29 percent.

"Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the
rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of
such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the "Variable Claims Factors") do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

Honeywell International Inc. (Honeywell) is a diversified
technology and manufacturing company, serving customers worldwide
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. Honeywell operates four
business segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions,
Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation
Systems. In July 2014, the Company announced that it has completed
the sale of its Friction Materials (FM) business to Federal-Mogul.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Witness List Objections in Coverage Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order on Oct. 10, 2014,
dismissing with prejudice General Refractories Company's objection
to the witness list, exhibits and deposition designations of
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, in the lawsuit commenced by
GRC against Travelers and other insurers seeking insurance
coverage for costs GRC incurred in asbestos-related claims and
lawsuits.

The case is GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE
CO., et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Restrepo's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GQvQdPfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to File Amici Curiae in NY PI Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motion by Business Council of New York State, et al., for leave to
file a brief amici curiae on the appeal in the case captioned IN
THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. DORIS KAY
DUMMITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD
DUMMITT, DECEASED, Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL.,
Defendants, CRANE CO., Appellant, MOTION NO. 2014-1040 (N.Y.), is
granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.  A full-text
copy of the Decision by the Court of Appeals of New York dated
Oct. 16, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/VZiLcZfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Partially Granted in WTC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tadeusz Kowalewski and his wife, Beata Kowalewski,
assert claims for common law negligence and violations of sections
200 and 241(6) of the New York Labor Law.  The claims are based
upon injuries Tadeusz Kowalewski allegedly suffered after working
in numerous buildings in the vicinity of the World Trade Center
site in the weeks, months, and years following the 9/11 terrorist
attacks.  Kowalewski asserts his claims against various owners,
managing agents, lessees, environmental consultants, and
contractors that allegedly owned, managed or worked in the
buildings.

Kowalewski, a licensed asbestos handler and member of Local Union
78, was hired by Pinnacle Environmental Corporation to participate
in the bulk and fine cleaning phases of the project.  Kowalewski
presents evidence that he was not provided with adequate
respiratory equipment and that a decontamination unit was not
initially available.

In an order and opinion dated Oct. 17, 2014, Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions.

Kowalewski points to evidence demonstrating a significant focus on
asbestos abatement at each building in which he worked.  Judge
Hellerstein ruled that this is sufficient to raise a genuine issue
of fact as to whether, in the terms of his hiring, he was made
aware that the dust he was hired to remove was "high-alkaline"
dust, or that he was aware of the particular hazard it posed.
Accordingly, for the reasons previously elaborated in In re World
Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, No. 09-cv-
680, 2014 WL 4446153, at *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2014), Judge
Hellerstein decline to grant the Defendants' motions on this
basis.

The case is IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE
LITIGATION. TADEUSZ KOWALEWSKI and BEATA KOWALEWSKI, Plaintiffs,
v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, ET AL., Defendants, CASE
NO. 06-CV-01521,, DOCKET NO. 21-MC-102 (S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Hellerstein's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/TwVVdrfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer May Revise Answer in Coverage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., filed an insurance
coverage action against one of its insurers, Defendant National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, alleging that the
Defendant has a duty under six insurance policies to defend and
indemnify it against claims by persons alleging injury caused by
exposure to asbestos from the Plaintiff's products.  The Plaintiff
alleges causes of action for declaratory relief, breach of
contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  The Defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File First
Amended Answer and Counterclaim.

Having considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority,
and the record in the case, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
Motion.

Specifically, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for leave
to amend its Answer with respect to the proposed affirmative
defenses of Failure to Perform Conditions Precedent, Duty to
Provide Notice, and Control of Defense and Settlement, and denied
the Defendant's motion with respect to the proposed affirmative
defense of Fraud, Concealment, Deceit; granted the Defendant's
motion for leave to file a Counterclaim with respect to causes of
action Three, Four, Five, and Eight, and denied the motion with
respect to causes of action One, Two, Six, and Seven.

The case is KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendant,
CASE NO. 14-CV-01797-MEJ (N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of
Magistrate James' order dated Oct. 17, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/FAONEIfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City, Owner Dispute Fibro Concerns in Bldg.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Hernandez, writing for The Denver Channel, reported that
three months after fire ripped through an eight unit apartment
building in Denver, Colorado's Five Points neighborhood, the
property is still sitting in ruins. What remains is still there
because of a dispute stemming from concerns about asbestos in the
structure.

The owner's representative tells 7NEWS that those concerns are
misplaced. Donald Fymbo, a licensed public adjuster, says three
private contractors have taken over 120 samples that show there is
no asbestos problem.

"Somebody wants to get as asbestos abatement job of $50,000 to
$60,000 and charge it to my client," he said, "and we're not
standing for it."

Fymbo said his client has a contract to demolish the building for
$41,000, but the city plans to hire a different contractor and
charge the owner $124,000.

"Nobody should be entering that building," said Denver Community
Planning and Development Communications Director Andrea Burns.
"It's unsafe."

Burns, says the city is operating under the assumption that there
is asbestos in the building because there are parts of it that are
inaccessible because of damage.

"We're moving down the path . . .  of taking care of that at the
point of demolition and removal," she said.

"Look, this is nonsense. We're not going to stand for this and
other people shouldn't either," Fymbo said.

7NEWS asked Burns why the city hasn't tested for asbestos.

"We're not going to put contractors or employees in danger by
accessing the site," she said.

When told that if there is no asbestos, the owner would still be
paying $60,000 more than she would otherwise, Burns replied,
"That's true."

"If they force the issue and force the insured to hire an attorney
to file an injunction, so be it," Fymbo said.

Burns said it's up to the state to sign off on any demolition
plan. She says the city submitted its plan several weeks ago,
while the owner's rep submitted their plan.

Both sides say they are ready to move at a moment's notice.
Neighbors don't care who wins the contract, they just want the
eyesore gone.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 Traders Die Weekly From Fibro, Agency Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITV News reported that the Health and Safety Executive have
released figures that show tradespeople are still at a risk of
asbestos.  Twenty tradespeople a week die from asbestos related
diseases and many are unaware of the dangers.

Some of the key findings in London are:

  -- 1.3 million tradespeople at risk from asbestos exposure
nationwide

  -- Tradespeople in London spend on average 2.18 days a week in
buildings built before 2000, which have a high risk of containing
asbestos. That's 90 days a year.

  -- Huge confusion in how to combat asbestos exposure -- 1 in 4
actually thought opening a window would help.

  -- Only 15% knew that asbestos could be found in buildings built
up to 2000.

  -- Tradespeople come into contact with asbestos over 100 times
each year, on average


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Rules in Insurance Coverage Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a New Jersey appeals court has affirmed a lower court's
judgments in a dispute over $1.85 billion in insurance coverage
with respect to asbestos litigation, concluding that some policies
had been exhausted and that an annual aggregate limit for each
policy year is appropriate.

Judge Victor Ashrafi delivered the Sept. 30 opinion in the
Superior Court of New Jersey's Appellate Division, affirming the
judgments of the lower court. Judges Joseph Yannotti and Jerome
St. John concurred.

The action arises out of several appeals from the Superior Court
of New Jersey disputing the final judgments regarding insurance
coverage for plaintiff IMO Industries' asbestos-related personal
injury liability.

IMO is the successor to Delaval Steam Turbine Company, which was a
manufacturer of asbestos-containing industrial products such as
turbines, pumps and other machinery with industrial and military
uses.

The suit names more than 50 defendants, which are all primary and
excess liability insurers, as well as Transamerica Corporation,
the former parent company of Delaval. IMO alleges it purchased a
total of $1.85 billion in insurance coverage from the defendant
insurers over the years and filed this suit to claim its rights
under those insurance policies and recover money damages.

The appeals court was tasked with deciding whether the trial court
properly treated primary insurance policies that pay for the
litigation defense costs in addition to the indemnification limits
of the policies; how the coverage limits of excess multi-year
policies must be treated in the allocation model outlined by Owens
and Carter; whether IMO was entitled to a jury trial on its claims
for money damages; and numerous challenges to the trial court's
interpretation of the insurance policies within the Owens and
Carter allocation methodology.

The 1994 Owens-Illinois decision established the "continuous
trigger" theory of insurance coverage for "long-tail"
environmental losses, such as asbestos exposure.

The court determined that the term "occurrence" in liability
policies means a "separate triggering event for insurance coverage
in each year from the time a claimant alleging injury was first
exposed to asbestos until manifestation of an asbestos-related
disease or until insurance coverage became unavailable."

The Owens court also established a pro-rated allocation model for
coverage responsibilities among multiple insurers based on an
insurer's time on the loss and limits of risk coverage in the
policies.

The 1998 Carter-Wallace decision further developed the allocation
methodology, holding that excess insurers were included in the
model. It also held that policies would be exhausted "vertically"
in each year of coverage "rather than all primary insurance
policies being exhausted "horizontally" first across the range of
triggered coverage years before excess insurers' policies would
attach."

Ashrafi said the exhaustion of defendant TIG's fronting policies
is the lead issue in this case. Transamerica Insurance Company
became TIG Insurance Company when it was divested in 1993.

At the time of the 1986 divestiture, IMO was named as a third-
party defendant in three asbestos lawsuits. TIG provided all of
the funds to pay these claims, and Transamerica reimbursed TIG at
least half that amount pursuant to their agreements.

TIG continued to defend IMO under its direct policies and its
fronting policies in several additional asbestos cases.

The court was tasked with deciding "whether TIG must cover defense
costs for an endless or indefinite time limit until it has
actually paid the indemnification limits of its policies, or
whether those policies were exhausted and TIG has no further
obligations to IMO."

According to TIG's policies, it is not obligated to pay any
asbestos award or defend a suit after the applicable limit of the
company's liability has been exhausted by paying previous
judgments or settlements.

However, IMO argues that TIG's policies can only be exhausted by
formal payment, "not just by allocation of sufficient losses to
the policies."

"If, as IMO contends, the policies require that only actual
payments for IMO's losses can relieve TIG of its contractual
obligation to pay for defense costs, total coverage of IMO's
losses and the attachment point for excess insurers will be
affected," Ashrafi wrote.

Judge Donald Coburn noted in the lower court that coverage for
defense costs outside policy limits represented only $40.6 million
of more than $1.85 billion of total coverage.

He further disagreed with IMO that the policy language requires
exhaustion by formal payment and concluded that all of TIG's
payments would count to satisfy the limits of the fronting
policies.

Relying on the Owens and Carter allocation methodology, the
appeals court affirmed Coburn's decision.

IMO further argued that the payments from TIG that were not
reimbursed by Transamerica were paid out of the direct policies
predating 1972 and should not be attributed to the fronting
policies from 1977 to 1986.

Ashrafi rejected the argument, holding that there is no dispute
that TIG's payments exceeded the aggregate of its Owens and Carter
allocations.

"So, we can say its policies were exhausted not just by
allocation, but by allocation combined with payments that exceeded
the total amount allocated to TIG," he wrote.

Ashrafi also rejected IMO's argument that shifting of payments
across coverage years violates Carter's holding prohibiting
horizontal distribution of losses over several policy years.

"A contrary conclusion on shifting of payments among coverage
years might provide an incentive for an insurer not to pay claims
promptly on the chance that a future development in the law, or
the discovery of additional policies and additional responsible
insurers, results in a lesser obligation," he wrote.

Ashrafi concluded that once the indemnity limits of the fronting
policies were reached by allocation, and the prior aggregate
payments from TIG exceeded those allocations, TIG's coverage was
exhausted.

TIG's overpayments resulted from "ongoing development of the law
fixing the responsibilities of the many insurers on the risk." In
fact, TIG's payments failed to coincide with loss allocations by
accident because of the development of the law.

Furthermore, because IMO insisted TIG adhere to its obligations
under the Indemnification Funding Agreements rather than determine
its obligation pursuant to the Carter methodology, retired Judge
Robert Muir, Jr., was called back to the bench to preside over
this case and invoked the doctrine of unclean hands, which barred
IMO from contesting the shifting of overpayments to TIG's
underpaid policies when IMO pursued a Carter allocation in this
litigation.

Ultimately, Ashrafi agreed with Muir's finding that payments by or
on behalf of a single insurer could be shifted from one policy
year to another to determine exhaustion, and that the TIG fronting
policies were exhausted by the end of 2003.

Ashrafi also addressed a cross-appeal by ACE, LMI and TIG,
alleging the multi-year policies in the allocation schedule were
treated erroneously. ACE and LMI are various insurance companies
that provided different levels of primary or excess liability
insurance to either IMO or Transamerica.  They claim their multi-
year policies mandate that a single coverage limit for the entire
term of the policy should have been used in the allocation
schedule rather than the full coverage limit for each year the
policy was in effect.

IMO does not dispute this argument but did seek a blanket ruling
that every year of a multi-year policy should be treated as if a
separate annual limit is available for asbestos claims.

Ashrafi explained that the Owens decision classified all asbestos
claims made in a year as a single occurrence; meaning if all three
years were viewed as a single occurrence, the insured would be
deprived of the annual aggregate limits of the policies.

However, TIG contends that the $2.5 million aggregate limit for
asbestos liability should have been applied for the full three-
year period, not separately for each policy year.

The trial court applied an annual aggregate limit for bodily
injury to each year of TIG's multi-year policy was consistent with
the Owens and Carter allocation methodology. Ashrafi agreed.

Several excess insurers challenged Muir's decision that coverage
issues would not be re-litigated for each individual asbestos
claim. The appeals court agreed.

"Allowing excess insurers to contest coverage is not feasible for
long-tail, multi-claim coverage cases and would compromise the
allocation methodology mandated by the Supreme Court," Ashrafi
wrote.

He added that excess insurers don't typically have any duty to
defend asbestos cases and may rely on the good faith of the
primary insurer in settling claims against the insured.

Ashrafi concluded that according to the Owens framework, insurers
who declined to defend claims against the insured may be precluded
form later challenging coverage.

As for the insurance companies' duty to defend uncovered claims,
Ashrafi explained that both the excess policies and the underlying
policies obligate the defendants to pay for damages arising out of
an "occurrence."

"The number of injuries or claims, even if temporarily removed
from their causes, are irrelevant when determining the number of
occurrences," he wrote.

As compelled by the Owens decision, the appeals court concluded
that defense costs are subject to allocation even if a portion of
them were devoted to defending against claims that were not
covered under the insurance policies.

The plaintiff also argued that the lower court erred when it
denied IMO's demand for a jury trial seeking compensatory and
punitive damages.

Ashrafi explains that IMO's original complaint focused on
declaratory relief when it sought to fix the obligations of
Transamerica and TIG in relation to the 1986 Distribution
Agreement.

IMO's primary pleadings sought declarations about the future
obligations of defendants.

"Although additional causes of action for money damages may have
arisen after the filing of the initial complaint, those claims are
still intertwined with the primary events and the allegations
presented in the original complaint," Ashrafi wrote.

As a result, the appeals court concluded that IMO did not have a
right to a jury trial.

"IMO's breach of contract and bad faith claims grew out of the
same dispute and were intertwined with its equitable claims. They
were based on the same facts and proofs as the claims for
declaratory judgment and specific performance. They were properly
and economically adjudicated within the equity court's ancillary
jurisdiction," Ashrafi wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Motions to Seal Claimants' Info Too Vague
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that as part of the unsealing process in the Garlock Sealing
Technologies bankruptcy proceeding, several oppositions to sealing
requests were recently filed, claiming that the motions were too
vague.

In Legal Newsline's opposition filed Oct. 2, it notes that the
debtors' motion was the only one to comply with the requirements
of the Protocol Order by identifying specific documents or
portions of documents that should remain sealed or redacted and
why no less restrictive alternatives are adequate.

Rather than seeking to seal specific documents, the motions seek
to seal or redact certain kinds of personal information, Legal
Newsline's attorneys explained.

Legal Newsline became involved in the case when U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge George Hodges closed the courtroom doors to one of its
reporters while Garlock submitted evidence of what it felt was
fraud on the part of asbestos attorneys.

Hodges sealed the evidence but cited it when he ruled Garlock
needed to put only $125 million in an asbestos trust -- roughly $1
billion less than asbestos plaintiffs attorneys requested.

Hodges ruled that the history of settlements and verdicts against
Garlock was skewed because of manipulation by asbestos attorneys.
Legal Newsline appealed his decision to seal the evidence and
recently won a court order from a district judge that said the
information should not have been sealed in the manner it was.

The parties were required to file motions to seal any information
they want kept sealed. If Hodges does not agree, the information
will become public.

The debtors, in response, added that none of the motions specify
which documents the movants are referring to, therefore failing to
meet the standard requirement.

Oppositions to debtors' motion to seal

Several parties filed oppositions to the debtors' motion to seal.
The most notable opposition, however, came from the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, or ACC, which was
filed on Oct. 2.

The ACC seeks to prevent the debtors from sealing their Major
Expenses Authorizations, or MEAs, and Trial Evaluation Forms, or
TEFs, along with testimony and other materials relating to those
documents.

MEAs are "internal corporate records of the debtors that
memorialize the reasons why the debtors settled mesothelioma cases
for the amounts they did."

TEFs are "standardized evaluations of cases proceeding to trial
provided to the debtors by their outside counsel."

The ACC argues that the MEAs and TEFs will "provide an important
window" by disclosing why the debtors chose to settle certain
asbestos cases during prior litigation. It believes the debtors'
allegations of fraudulent activity within the plaintiffs' bar by
withholding additional asbestos exposure is not true.

The ACC opposes the debtors sealing request, calling it an
"attempt to sweep evidence under the rug."

It adds that the debtors have been "enthusiastic advocates" of
disclosure for the public until their own information was at
stake, stating that sealing should not be used to slant publicly-
available information.

"Now, without any sense of irony, the debtors maintain that their
own documents -- critical pieces of the full story -- should
remain sealed and shielded from public scrutiny," the response
states.

"The debtors must not be allowed to use sealing as a way to skew
the public dialogue about this case."

The ACC claims the debtors have cast themselves as the "guardians
of justice" in an attempt to unveil any wrongdoing by the
plaintiffs' bar, which would then help their strategy to avoid
asbestos liability.

"The debtors' attempt to seal their own documents -- evidence that
undermines their narrative -- reveals that their commitment to
openness applies only when it serves the debtors' interests," the
response states. "Of course, openness goes both ways."

The ACC went as far as admitting that the public deserves to know
about the plaintiffs' bar allegedly withholding evidence of
exposure, and added that it equally deserves to know about why the
debtors settled cases.

"Any attempt to keep the public debate one-sided by suppressing
these materials should be denied," the ACC wrote. "Moreover, one
of the important purposes of public access is to promote the
public's ability to oversee and monitor the workings of the
Judicial Branch. Hobbling public access by sealing material that
supports one side of an issue hinders that purpose."

Furthermore, ACC argues that the court previously waived any
privileges that may have protected these documents.

It explains that the debtors' attorneys testified about settlement
decisions in support of their argument that settlement values were
inflated when plaintiffs' attorneys allegedly concealed evidence
of exposure.

While the debtors argue that communications between the debtors
and their counsel discussing the reasons they chose to settle
claims is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine, the ACC contends that the attorneys' testimonies
waive those privileges.

Debtors' opposition

The debtors filed their opposition on Oct. 2 against the various
motions seeking to seal names of adult asbestos claimants and the
amounts of settlements, as well as questionnaires and the
information reflecting trust claim submissions.

The debtors argue that the motions should be denied because the
movants failed to satisfy a "heavy burden to overcome the
presumptive right of access to bankruptcy court records."

The debtors claim the movants failed to provide specific reasons
to redact adult asbestos claimants' names, especially since many
of the names in the estimation record have open claims and are
creditors in the case.

They explain that bankruptcy courts are typically reluctant to
allow creditors to remain anonymous unless the creditor is able to
prove that he or she will be specifically targeted as a result of
such disclosures.

"Movants' assertions about identity theft amount to nothing more
than generalized or speculative assertions of risk that do not
constitute the requisite 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying
anonymous appearances by creditors," the opposition states.

Additionally, the debtors contend that the adult asbestos
claimants already made their names publicly available when they
chose to pursue tort actions against Garlock.

"Unsurprisingly, the motions to seal cite no authority for the
proposition that a plaintiff who publicly files a legal action
against a debtor is entitled to withhold his or her name from
public disclosure in a subsequent bankruptcy proceeding," the
opposition states.

Furthermore, the debtors argue that the motions failed to provide
justification for sealing questionnaires and trust claim data.

"The motions to seal do not argue that redaction or sealing of
such materials is warranted . . . nor could they since such
information is not competitively sensitive, is not scandalous or
defamatory, and does not place an individual at undue risk of
identity theft," the debtors argue.

Various asbestos defendants' opposition

Roughly 12 common asbestos defendants filed their joint opposition
on Sept. 25.

Like the debtors, the asbestos defendants first take issue with
the requests to seal adult asbestos claimants' names, arguing that
such information is not confidential and has already been
voluntarily disclosed.

The defendants argue that Belluck & Fox did not meet its burden
proving the names should be redacted from the sealed evidence
because it failed to show that "extraordinary circumstances"
support the pseudonyms.

"This is unsurprising given that there is absolutely nothing
inherently confidential about the names of adult asbestos
claimants, and, upon information and belief, the adult asbestos
claimants whose names appear in the sealed evidence have already
made their identities public by asserting claims against one or
more of the debtors in the past," they argue.

Additionally, the asbestos defendants note that several of the
claimants names have been disclosed publicly when it suited their
lawyers' interests in marketing campaigns.

For example, Belluck & Fox published the name, disease information
and physical images of asbestos claimants on its website as a
marketing tool, it says.

"The public has an interest in the disclosure of the names of
adult asbestos claimants as set forth in the sealed evidence
because only by matching the names of claimants who asserted
claims against Garlock to claimants who asserted claims in other
forums against other sources was the court able to discern the
widespread misrepresentations that it discusses at length in the
estimation order," the defendants concluded. "In other words, the
names themselves are at the very heart of the issues addressed in
the estimation order."

The asbestos defendants also oppose sealing the questionnaires,
trust claim forms and settlement amounts, arguing that the movants
have not met their burden of proving that these materials should
remain confidential.

They argue that the movants' argument that disclosure would
discourage settlements, thus going against a "strong public
policy" to encourage settlements, is insufficient.

Legal Newsline's opposition

Legal Newsline explained that when determining whether the First
Amendment provides a right of access to particular proceedings, it
applies the "experience and logic" test, which focuses on the
nature of the particular proceeding.

The experience requirement is satisfied here because bankruptcy
proceedings have a "deep-seated" tradition of being open to the
public, it argues.

As for the logic requirement, Legal Newsline, quoting Hodges,
stated that the "public's oversight of the courts will be assisted
by disclosure of the extent to which there was evidence at the
estimation trial relating to the court's conclusion that a
'startling pattern of misrepresentation' and 'suppression of
evidence' by asbestos claimants and their lawyers that 'had a
profound impact on a number of Garlock's trials and many of its
settlements such that the amounts recovered were inflated.'

"That oversight is the very purpose that the presumptive right of
access is intended to protect.

"Citizens' ability to understand and evaluate judicial decisions
requires access to the evidence on which those decisions are
based."

Furthermore, Legal Newsline opposes the movants' argument that
asbestos claimants relied on their discovery responses being kept
confidential permanently. It explains that the claimants were
legally required to provide the information, they did not
negotiate the terms of their production and the protective and
confidentiality orders recognized the possibility that access
might be allowed in the future.

"Although no balancing of interest is necessary, and movants'
inability to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest is
fatal to their request to seal any settlement information, it
should be recognized that evidence regarding settlements appears
to have played a key role in many of the court's most important
findings," the opposition states.

"Public access to that settlement information is particularly
important to be able 'to understand the grounds and motivations of
[the court's] decision."

Legal Newsline also opposes requests to seal or redact adult
asbestos claimants' names, arguing that the names were disclosed
in the litigation and other proceedings that were the subject of
the evidence.

Movants rely on arguments of identity theft and privacy interests,
but these "vague and generalized assertions fall far short of the
proof of immediate and assured harm needed for the extraordinary
relief sought by movants," Legal Newsline explains.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Delays Putnam Bridge Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Marteka, writing for Hartford Courant, reported that the
state of Connecticut's Department of Transportation's $33 million
renovation of the William Putnam Memorial Bridge is slightly
behind schedule, but still on track for completion in the spring,
officials said.

The project was set back about a month from its original May 2015
completition date when asbestos was discovered in a conduit
running along the frame that had to be removed, said DOT spokesman
Kevin Nursick.  Construction on the 56-year-old bridge, which
takes Route 3 across the Connecticut River between Wethersfield
and Glastonbury, began in 2012.

"You are talking about a bridge that needed a ton of work, but it
has gone well and very smoothly," Nursick said. The renovation is
designed to address deterioration of the steel superstructure and
other structural deficiencies.

Nursick said the department expected to have to close down one
side of the bridge or the other during construction, but so far
has been able to do the work using only temporary lane closures.
He said the DOT may resort to closures during final paving next
spring, but that would be the earliest it would have to.

"Traffic has been running smoothly," he said. "We have made sure
that all lanes are open during the morning and afternoon commute.
The one lane on weekends will continue at least through mid-
November."

Nursick said a "ton of work" has been done, including a 90 percent
replacement of the steel frame. About half the bridge's joints
have been replaced along with the bridge bearings underneath.
Nursick said the bridge has to be jacked up to replace the
bearings.

The sidewalk along the southern side of the bridge has been
completed and a composite decking will be installed soon. The
bridge's parapets -- the Jersey barrier-like structures along the
sides of the bridge -- have been installed. Crews are also working
on a new stronger, and safer concrete center median.

"Over the winter you won't see a lot of work because they will be
doing things out of view," he said.

The bridge will be milled and paved when the asphalt plants open
in the spring. Nursick said motorists can expect a "much smoother
ride" when the final paving is completed.

"Motorists really get bumped around now," he said. "All that is
temporary. You can expect a smooth, rideable surface when it is
all completed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Car Deal Balks at Law Firm's Settlement Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a California car dealership is criticizing settlement
practices by the Keller, Fishback & Jackson law firm in a
malicious prosecution lawsuit that alleges the firm refused to
release the dealership from an asbestos wrongful death case
despite having no evidence proving causation or liability.

Plaintiff Tulare Sag, Inc., a California corporation doing
business as Lampe Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep, filed the lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Tulare
against the Keller, Fishback & Jackson law firm, Stephen M.
Fishback, Diran H. Tashjian, J. Bruce Jackson, and Does 1 through
25.

Michael J. Lampe of the Law Offices of Michael J. Lampe represents
the plaintiffs in this case and recently stressed in an interview
what he says were disturbing settlement practices in the original
asbestos lawsuit.

"In my view," Lampe said, "it rises to the level of probably
criminal activity."

In Lampe Dodge's malicious prosecution lawsuit, it argues the
defendants did not "honestly and reasonably" believe there were
grounds for the actions alleged in the asbestos lawsuit.

"The defendants acted maliciously in prosecuting the asbestos case
against Lampe, in that they held the specter of a multi-million
dollar damage award over Lampe in a case where Lampe had no actual
liability to the [asbestos] plaintiffs, repeatedly demonstrated
that it had no liability to plaintiffs, and would not accede to
the defendants' demands to settle the Hardeman action," the
amended complaint states.

Lampe Dodge also alleges Keller Fishback failed to notify the
claimants of several settlement offers by Lampe in the asbestos
case.

Claimants Johann Hardeman, Tyne Harold Hardeman and Michael Todd
Hardeman stated that they were unaware of any settlement offers
while the case was being litigated.

Additionally, Lampe Dodge alleges Keller Fishback failed to notify
the Hardemans that the asbestos case had been set for trial and
that their presence was required.

Ultimately, the Hardemans filed a lawsuit against Keller Fishback
with Lampe serving as their counsel.

As a result, Lampe sought access to the Hardemans' settlement
information with their approval, which he says was met with
multiple failures by the Keller Fishback law firm to produce the
files at the request of their former clients.

Keller Fishback complied after the Hardemans filed complaints with
the State Bar of California. However, the files were in a sealed
package with a cover letter warning Lampe not to review any
documents as it was "the subject of confidentiality provisions,
which Keller, Fishback & Jackson LLP wish to maintain. Thus, you
are not authorized to open and/or review this material."

"This attempt at intimidation did not work, and upon review of the
contents of the sealed package, it is obvious why Keller Fishback
and its defense lawyers did not want me to see the settlement
distributions," Lampe said.

After a lengthy battle with the Keller Fishback firm, Lampe said
he finally received the Hardeman files from the law firm in May
2012 detailing how settlement funds were distributed.

Lampe says the asbestos attorneys settled claims by grouping the
Hardemans' asbestos case with unrelated claims alleged by other
Keller Fishback clients and then "distributing the proceeds in a
manner solely determined by Keller Fishback."

Lampe Dodge alleged the Hardemans were unaware that their claims
had been bundled and settled, allowing the law firm to assign more
settlement proceeds to other clients.  For example, Lamp described
one instance when Keller Fishback negotiated a group settlement
for 11 separate plaintiffs with a defendant for $275,000, but only
reported a settlement in the amount of $50,000 to the Hardemans.

Lampe questioned why Keller Fishback would report a $50,000
settlement to plaintiffs in a weak case when it was still owed
costs unless the claimants were concerned about the distribution
of their settlements.

"It is interesting to note that prior to reporting this $50,000
settlement (and not disclosing the bundled settlement of
$275,000), the Keller Fishback firm had received five other
settlements totaling $77,500, all of which the lawyers paid
themselves for attorneys fees and costs allegedly incurred, and
none of which was paid to the Hardemans," Lampe explained.

"This is precisely why the law doesn't allow . . . lawyers to make
these decisions on behalf of the clients," he added. "You can't
just divide the money up however you want. Obviously the potential
for abuse there is quite high."

More specifically, Lampe said that while a settlement summary
appears as though the Hardemans received $28,934.95, the sum is
"highly misleading."

He explained that the total is particularly misleading because two
awards made in November 2011 were distributed after Lampe Dodge
filed its lawsuit against the Hardemans for malicious prosecution
and more than $22,000 in costs still remained to be paid.

The Hardemans were originally named in this case after Lampe Dodge
sent several letters to Keller Fishback suggesting a possible
lawsuit if the dealership wasn't dismissed from the case, about
which the Hardemans had no idea.

"In willful and conscious disregard for the rights of Lampe, their
own clients, and the public in general, the defendants have
created a business model that benefits them at the expense of
their own clients and the public at large, including Lampe," the
amended complaint states.

Lampe added that he can't believe Keller Fishback would pay awards
to the Hardemans at a time when it claimed unpaid costs exceeding
$22,000 unless it had a "public relations disaster on its hands."
He said the firm must have distributed the awards after the
Hardemans began asking tough questions upon discovering they were
being sued.

Furthermore, Lampe pointed out in the settlement summary that the
Hardemans didn't receive any distribution of awards until the
seventh settlement agreement.

"If you really follow the money on this thing, you really begin to
see how the process has been manipulated to the advantage of the
lawyers and the disadvantage of the clients," he said.

Lampe Dodge stated that the Hardemans recovered a total of
$165,750 from all 43 defendants in the asbestos suit.

"If there's 43 defendants and the best you can get in a wrongful
death case is $165,750, that tells you right of the back it's a
pretty crappy case. It's a nuisance case," Lampe said.

Of that amount, at least $96,700 was paid to the Keller Fishback
law firm for costs and another 40 percent was set aside for legal
fees, the complaint states.

"Adjusting the total would have actually been paid to the
Hardemans but for this attempt to placate some understandable
angry clients, the amount that the Hardemans would have received
is reduced to $21,157.95," Lampe explained. "This computes a mere
$492.05 for each of the 43 defendants named in the lawsuit --
hardly anything to brag about."

Lampe claims that some of Keller Fishback's alleged costs were
either inflated or nonexistent.

"This business model, and the conduct engaged in by the Keller
Fishback defendants, especially as it relates to Lampe Dodge,
amounts to nothing short of a shake down, and is despicable
conduct that would be looked down on and despised by reasonable
people, and justify an award of punitive damages," the amended
complaint states.

The complaint arises out of a 2007 asbestos wrongful death case,
where the defendants served as counsel for asbestos claimants, who
filed the underlying suit against 43 defendants for the alleged
death of Leonard Hardemant as a result of asbestos exposure.

Lampe Dodge was named a defendant in the underlying asbestos case,
with 15 separate causes of action asserted against it.

During trial in August 2011, the Keller Fishback law firm admitted
its client had no evidence to support the original theory of
liability against Lampe Dodge alleged in the asbestos complaint,
the amended complaint explains.

Instead, Lampe said Keller Fishback admitted it didn't have any
evidence in 13 of the 15 claims asserted in the complaint and
wanted to allege successor liability on implies assumption rather
than its prior allegations.

As a result, the trial court dismissed the case, calling it a
"little cat and mouse game." The judge noted that the parties had
been in the case for more than three years and failed to address
its successor liability theory until trial.

The case is currently at a standstill as the parties negotiate
potential mediation.  Lampe said he is have a difficult time
scheduling depositions with Keller and Fishback. As a result,
Lampe met with Marshall Whitney, attorney for the defendants, to
discuss the possibility of mediation without doing any
depositions.

"I don't know whether or not we will reach an agreement at the end
of the day," Lampe said. "We're close."

The current mediation date is scheduled for January. If it is
unsuccessful and an agreement is not met, the trial date will be
continued, a Special Master will be appointed as a "discovery
referee" and depositions will be scheduled.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flintkote Insurer Freed From Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reported that the Third Circuit
ruled that bankrupt construction products purveyor Flintkote Co.
can't force Aviva PLC into arbitration over more than $20 million
in disputed asbestos liability coverage, saying the parties can't
rely on an unsigned arbitration agreement and reversing a district
court decision.

A unanimous three-judge panel said a lower court was incorrect
when it determined that since Aviva had exploited a global
mediation between Flintkote and other insurers for its own
benefit, it was estopped from invoking a 1989 pact with the
company that called for coverage disputes to be resolved
exclusively through litigation.

Aviva unit Indemnity Marine Assurance Co. Ltd. participated in the
mediation as well, under a separate contract with Flintkote known
as the Wellington Agreement, which Aviva never signed. However,
the trial court held that Aviva was bound to the agreement's
alternative dispute resolution methods, which include arbitration,
a finding overturned by the appeals panel.

"The record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that
Aviva embraced the Wellington Agreement by directly benefitting
from that agreement, consistently seeking to enforce that
agreement's provisions for Aviva's benefit, or suing to enforce
rights ostensibly arising under that agreement," the panel's
opinion states. "The district court thus erred in granting
Flintkote's motion to compel arbitration on this basis."

Flintkote used to manufacture various building and construction
products, including roofing, insulation, gypsum and flooring
products. By 1985, the company operated dozens of plants in the
U.S. and had sales revenues of $685 million.

The company later said that it was operated by its owner, Imperial
Tobacco Group PLC, as a corporate vehicle to "run off" asbestos
liabilities and pursue insurance recoveries for Imperial's
benefit. When Flintkote entered bankruptcy in 2004, there were
about 157,000 asbestos-related personal injury claims against it.

Flintkote has been mediating its demands for reimbursement from
most of its insurers for more than six years pursuant to the
Wellington Agreement but reached an impasse with Aviva in 2012. In
addition, Indemnity Marine gave notice that it would try to escape
the mediation since it was not actually named on the disputed
insurance policy. Under its reading, the policy only put the
parent company on the hook for coverage.

The case was remanded to district court for further proceedings
consistent with the panel's opinion.

Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to a request
from Law360 for comment.

The panel consisted of U.S. Circuit Judges D. Brooks Smith, Thomas
I. Vanaskie and Patty Shwartz.

The panel's opinion was written by Judge Vanaskie.

Flintkote is represented by Louis A. Chiafullo, Gita F.
Rothschild, Michael P. Kelly and Katharine L. Mayer of McCarter &
English LLP.

Aviva is represented by Fred L. Alvarez and Arthur J. McColgan II
of Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP; and Thaddeus J. Weaver of Dilworth
Paxson LLP.

The case is Flintkote Co. v. Aviva PLC, case number 13-4055, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Win Landmark Legal Battle
--------------------------------------------------------
Tomohiro Osaki, writing for The Japan Times, reported that in a
landmark ruling, the Supreme Court in Japan said the government
acted illegally in failing to mandate ventilation to protect
workers at asbestos mills, holding the state liable for JPY330
million in compensation.

It is the first time the top court has indicted the state for
asbestos-linked health problems. The ruling is likely to influence
similar lawsuits in the future.  It also ends an eight-year
struggle for justice by several dozen sufferers from Osaka
Prefecture who uncovered divisions between different layers of the
judiciary in assessing the state's culpability.

The government's failure to mandate the installation of air
ventilation in places where laborers handled asbestos was
"extremely unreasonable" and "illegal," said Presiding Justice Yu
Shiraki.

Outside the court, plaintiffs and their supporters erupted in joy
when they heard the news.

"This is a huge step forward," one man said through a megaphone.
"I'm sure this will give ammunition to future anti-asbestos
movements like ours."

The court rejected an appeal by the state against an earlier high
court ruling that upheld the plaintiffs' cause.  The ruling was
handed down in a combined response to two litigations filed by 89
former plant workers and their families in the city of Sennan,
Osaka Prefecture, who say they suffered lung cancer and other
maladies linked to asbestos inhalation.  The court held that 54 of
the plaintiffs were eligible for redress, but more are expected to
be compensated in the future.

The plaintiffs argued that the state's failure to protect plant
workers continued long after the material's toxicity was medically
well-established in Japan in the late 1950s. It was not until 1971
that the state mandated the ventilator installation in asbestos-
linked workplaces.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed other accusations against
the state, ruling that it had acted sufficiently swiftly in
imposing other safety measures, namely lowering asbestos to safe
levels in the workplace and requiring workers to wear asbestos
dust masks.

This meant some of the plaintiffs were ineligible for
compensation. Miyoko Sato was one of them.

"To be perfectly honest, yes, I'm personally disappointed," she
told reporters after the ruling. "But I'm really happy that other
people won this fight."

The government argued it ramped up steps against the threat from
asbestos at a pace it saw fit, rejecting culpability.

The plaintiffs comprised two groups. The Osaka District Court
ruled in favor of both Group 1 and Group 2, in 2010 and 2012,
respectively, acknowledging that the state illegally neglected to
mandate ventilation in a timely manner. The ruling said the state
should pay compensation.

The Osaka High Court was less consistent. In 2011, it held the
state's handling of ventilator requirements didn't constitute an
illegality. In 2013, it ruled that the order to mandate ventilator
installments came too late.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Home Renovators Are Third Wave of Fibro Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Noone, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reported that
weekend warriors are playing "renovation roulette" -- with
asbestos fuelling a "third wave" of cancer victims, according to
experts.

Spurred on by popular DIY and home makeover shows, domestic
exposure -- specifically in women -- is among the fastest growing
causes of asbestos-related diseases.

No longer an "old man's disease", this third wave follows the
initial "snowmen" who worked in asbestos mines and factories in
the 1930s and later the tradies such as builders, roofers and
mechanics exposed to the deadly fibres during much of their
careers.

Asbestos Diseases Research Institute professor Nico van Zandwijk
said "statistics are suggesting that an increasing number of
mesothelioma victims were exposed to asbestos fibres in non-
occupational settings such as home renovation and maintenance
including women and children.

In the lead-up to November -- which is Asbestos Awareness Month --
Asbestos Education Committee chairman Peter Dunphy said there was
"no safe level of exposure to asbestos fibres".

"With at least one-in-three Australian homes containing asbestos,
many homeowners, renovators, tradies and handymen are putting
their health and the health of families at risk when doing home
renovations," he said.

A study in the Medical Journal of Australia found 60 per cent of
DIY renovators reported being exposed to asbestos dust, 53 said
their partner had been exposed and 40 per cent said their children
were.

Another study in the same journal found the number of home
renovation cases had soared from five per cent of all malignant
mesothelioma cases in women during the 1990s to more than 35 per
cent between 2005 and 2008.

Over his 30-year career as a master builder, host of The Living
Room Barry Du Bois said it was "scary" to think about how often he
worked with asbestos.

Du Bois has now become an asbestos awareness ambassador, using his
celebrity profile to alert people to the dangers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malone Men Get Prison for Improper Fibro Removal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Krieg, writing for Press-Republican, reported that a
property owner in Malone, New York, and his employee will begin
serving prison sentences after pleading guilty to federal charges
relating to an asbestos-renovation project.

John Mills, 64, and Terrance Allen, 55, were originally indicted
by a federal grand jury on 11 counts, including conspiracy to
defraud the U.S. government and violations of the Clean Air Act
related to not removing, transporting or disposing of asbestos
properly and not reporting the removal of the hazardous material
at 144 Elm St. in Malone.

The work was done without a trained supervisor and without sealing
off the work area to prevent material from becoming airborne,
according to the indictment.

The indictment also accused Mills and Allen of transporting bags
of the material from 144 Elm St. via U-Haul to a shed owned by the
Village Department of Public Works.

On Jan. 21, 2014, Mills pleaded guilty to two counts of violations
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), or "Superfund," and conspiracy to defraud
and commit offenses against the United States.

Allen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud and commit offenses
against the United States, as well as one count of violation of
CERCLA.

On Sept. 8, they were each sentenced in the U.S. District Court of
New York in Syracuse by Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy
to 21 months in federal prison.

The court made the recommendation that they be incarcerated in a
facility as close to Malone as possible and that they each
complete 100 hours of community service.

Allen will participate in a substance-abuse program, which may
include inpatient or outpatient treatment. He will also be tested
for drugs and alcohol and help pay for the evaluations or testing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP300,000 Claim Over Fibro Death Thrown Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Press reported that the family of a company boss who blamed
his death from asbestos-related cancer on his work at Marks &
Spencer in York, England, have had their hopes of GBP300,000
compensation dashed by a top judge.

John Thorman Heward, who was managing director of Newcastle-based
shopfitters, D.H Allan & Sons Ltd, was 61 when he died in 2009
from mesothelioma, an agonising cancer of the lining of the lungs
which is invariably fatal.

Mr Heward, who started working for D.H Allan at the age of 16
before rising through the ranks, blamed his illness on work he
carried out for Marks & Spencer Plc between 1967 and 1984.  He was
exposed to asbestos dust and fibres whilst carrying out joinery
work at a store in York in 1967 and, in later years, whilst
modernizing 13 M&S stores across the North East.

Although Mr Heward died years before his case came to court, he
made detailed statements which were used during the hearing at
London's High Court.  His wife, Catherine, did not long survive
him and the case was pursued by the executors of her estate on
behalf of surviving heirs.

Mr Heward had described himself as 'suit and tie man' who was
unaware of the risks posed by asbestos and who did not start to
wear protective clothing until 1984.

The family's barrister, David Allan QC, told Judge David Pittaway
QC that exposure to dust from asbestos tiles and pipe lagging
whilst carrying out joinery work and inspecting ceilings in M&S
stores was to blame for his "painful and distressing terminal
illness".

The barrister pointed to one alleged incident of exposure in
particular, saying that, in 1967, Mr Heward was working beneath an
asbestos ceiling which was being fitted at the York branch and
quantities of asbestos dust were "falling directly on him."

The QC added that, although D.H Allan did not work exclusively for
M&S, 80% of its work was based at the company's stores.

The court heard that, during the 1960's and 1970's, M&S stores
underwent modernization, including having suspended ceilings made
of Asbestelux tiles fitted.

After 1984, M&S put in place protocols to protect workers from
asbestos, but lawyers argued that Mr Heward's exposure up to that
point was already enough to hand him a death sentence decades
later.

Judge Pittaway said that asbestos had at the time been "used
extensively" in M&S stores, particularly in ceiling tiles.  He
added: "I am satisfied that Mr Heward contracted mesothelioma
whilst he was carrying out work for D.H Allan at M&S stores
sometime between 1967 and 1984"

However, dismissing the compensation claim, the judge said M&S had
employed specialist contractors to carry out the work at the York
store.

By the standards of the time, he ruled, it was "not reasonably
foreseeable" that the presence of asbestos would pose a threat to
the health of others working there.

Knowledge of the asbestos hazard was still developing in the 1960s
and 1970s, and the level of Mr Heward's exposure when inspecting
and surveying ceiling voids would have been lower than hygiene or
control limits in force at the time.

The judge concluded: "It follows that, in my view, the claim
against M&S fails on both the exposure to asbestos that the
deceased experienced in the York store in 1967, and in stores
subsequently, whilist inspecting store premises"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Holding Up Demolition of Butte Bldg.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nessa Wright, writing for ABC Fox Montana, reported that fence
surrounds a collapsed building in uptown Butte, Montana, which the
county ordered demolished, but they served a cease and desist
order on the owner.

It's been four months since the building at 750 S. Wyoming Street
collapsed on June 28. Owner Joe Lynch said, "The reason for the
collapse is a broken water line in the neighbors building and it
undermined the foundation in my building causing posts to sink and
the roof to fall in from the inside and then the wall fallout."

An asbestos inspection report reveals the collapsed building
contains asbestos, a concern for some in the community. Larry
Alheim with the state DEQ said, "It was inspected by a Montana
accredited asbestos inspector and they did determine that the
building does contain asbestos containing material."

Bruce Ingraham's family runs an asbestos removal company in Butte.
He said action to remove the asbestos should have already taken
place. "I'm concerned about it all the time and all aspects of it.
In the real world we'd like to of seen that cleaned up right away.
Lots of problems, lot of issues with the building."

Breathing in asbestos can lead to a slew of health problems
including cancer. What is the stall in removing the asbestos,
which could potentially be cause for much bigger problems than the
eyesore of a collapsed building?

Owner Joe Lynch said he's been making efforts to clean the mess up
to avoid future problems but the DEQ and City-County are holding
that up. "I'm waiting for all the asbestos stuff to you know get
going and you know I'm threatened with civil and criminal
penalties even though the building up the alley owner walked away
without having to pay a penny for the demolition."

Justin Ringsak, spokesman for BSB City-County said, "As far as the
asbestos issues, that has further complicated things and that's
caused the state Department of Environmental Quality to get
involved."

Asbestos experts say the collapsed building and pile of bricks
should be watered on a regular basis to limit the exposure of
asbestos into the air.

Lynch said he and his contractors are getting trained in asbestos
removal so he will be certified to remove it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Seal Too Vague to Satisfy Garlock Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that in the midst of the unsealing process in the Garlock Sealing
Technologies bankruptcy proceeding, a bankruptcy attorney said
plaintiffs attorneys filing motions to seal were vague in their
requests with the "clear goal" to cast a broad web, defying
Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges' orders to be specific.

Attorney David Christian, founder of the David Christian Attorneys
law firm, said the motions to seal did not conform to Hodges'
strict requirements, which could cause a hiccup in the original
plan for the unsealing process.

"The papers I've seen lead me to conclude that the showing so far
does not meet the burden required," Christian said.

Because he said the motions were vague in nature, requesting
confidentiality or redaction of certain types of personal
information -- such as claimants' names and settlement
information -- rather than specific documents, Christian said he
is unsure whether the information will be released as originally
promised.

Now, more than two weeks after Hodges was supposed to unseal all
materials not subject to a motion to seal, only the debtors have
provided the information as ordered, he said.

"I think there is and will continue to be a lot of posturing,"
Christian said.

In fact, Christian said he expects appellate proceedings will
apply legal rules which will impose high burdens on a document-by-
document basis.

Some of the sealed evidence in the Garlock proceeding suggests
fraud on the part of asbestos attorneys who withheld their
clients' exposures to products made by other companies in order to
maximize recovery in civil court against Garlock. In fact, Hodges
ruled that Garlock's settlement and verdict history in civil court
was not reliable because asbestos attorneys had manipulated the
system.

In making his January ruling, Hodges ordered $125 million to be
placed in Garlock's asbestos bankruptcy trust, roughly $1 billion
less than plaintiffs attorneys had suggested.

Legal Newsline became involved when it was shut out of the
courtroom during the estimation hearing. Legal Newsline appealed
Hodges' decision to seal the evidence and recently won a victory
at the district court level that spawned the current unsealing
process.

According to Hodges' Protocol Order, any party wishing to keep
documents under seal from the Garlock estimation proceeding were
required to file a motion to seal in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of North Carolina.

More specifically, those motions must identify and describe each
document or testimony it believes should be sealed or redacted and
the reasons the materials should be kept confidential. They must
also explain why no means less restrictive than sealing are
available and how long the materials should be maintained under
seal.

While Hodges' order required specific requests with solid
arguments, Christian suggested that the parties seeking
confidentiality are not prepared to reveal the specific evidence
from the estimation proceeding by naming precise documents.

"The parties are not ready to get down to brass tax or be seen as
conceding too much," Christian said.

Several parties filing oppositions to the motions to seal also
pointed out that the motions to seal lacked detailed requests.

In Legal Newsline's opposition filed Oct. 2, it notes that the
debtors' motion was the only one to comply with the requirements
of the Protocol Order by identifying specific documents or
portions of documents that should remain sealed or redacted and
why no less restrictive alternatives are adequate.

The debtors added that none of the motions specify which documents
the movants are referring to, therefore failing to satisfy a
"heavy burden to overcome the presumptive right of access to
bankruptcy court records."

The Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, or
ACC, passed the burden of arguing confidentiality off to the
plaintiffs' firms, saying it is their interest and responsibility,
Christian said.

In the ACC's Sept. 11 motion to seal, it suggested the court to
consider any particular interests asserted and arguments advanced
by the claimants rather than specify documents it felt should be
kept confidential.

However, the ACC did go as far as requesting an order sealing or
redacting any information that would invade the "legitimate
privacy interests" of asbestos victims if disclosed, such as
medical information and personally identifying information.

With that being said, the committee said it had no further
objections to unsealing the estimation proceeding.

"Subject to the protection of asbestos victims' legitimate privacy
interests, and without prejudice to any other issues asbestos
victims and their counsel may raise, the Committee has no
objection to unsealing the record of the estimation proceeding,"
it states in its motion.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs firms claimed they didn't know
how the information they provided was actually used in the
estimation proceeding. They argue that the court could have
reached its decision without their clients' information, meaning
the documents would not be subject to disclosure according to the
public's right to access.

Therefore, they say only the committee, the debtors and the court
truly knows what information was used and how it was used.

"Because the record is sealed and neither the injured individuals
nor the claimant firms . . . participated in the estimation trial,
they are unsure whether the information and documents that are
subject of this motion to seal, though generally referenced within
the scope of the protocol order and clearly subject to pretrial
confidentiality orders, were actually made a part of the judicial
record," the plaintiffs firms claim.

As a result, they abdicated responsibility when it came to naming
specific documents in their requests and stuck to specifying types
of information they felt should remain confidential.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths in Melbourne to be Probed
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that an urgent investigation was ordered into
asbestos-related deaths near an old cement factory in Melbourne,
Australia.

The Health Department asked the Victorian Cancer Registry to
conduct an urgent analysis of the area around the Wunderlich
factory in Sunshine North.  The site was linked to a number of
asbestos-related deaths but the Health Department said it was
"unaware of any increase in cancer cases in Sunshine North."

Lawyers with Slater and Gordon led settlements worth hundreds of
thousands of dollars and more claims were still being made.  It
was alleged that white asbestos from the factory was not properly
contained and the site needs still needed to be properly cleaned-
up.

Lawyer Margaret Kent said it was not surprising Wunderlich was
involved because it was one of two big asbestos manufacturers in
the period between the 1950s and 1970s, along with James Hardie.

"What is surprising is that is that there should be so many
environmental exposures as a result of the factory operation in
Sunshine North," she said.

"People living in the suburb at the time will have been exposed to
asbestos just because they were living there."

No safe level of exposure to asbestos

Ms Kent said "many people" had come forward, including those who
worked at the plant and their relatives and children who went to
nearby schools.  A large number of children played at the back of
the Wunderlich factory, Ms Kent said.

"It was a kind of suburban playground for the kids growing up in
the area at the time and many children were exposed to asbestos as
a result," she said.

Ms Kent said they were not trying to scare people but it was
important that they knew about the issue.

"It's very important for people to remember that most people who
are exposed to asbestos will not develop the disease," she said.

"But it is also true that there is no safe dose of exposure to
asbestos and that very small exposures, if you're unlucky, can
lead to disease."

Health Minister David Davis only realised there was a problem when
he saw the story in the newspaper.

"I will seek information from my department. They obviously have
access to some of the cancer registries which may be helpful in
understanding what has gone on in the area," he said.

"This is part of the ongoing challenge that communities, not just
here in Victoria but internationally face with asbestos.

"There are processes that require owners of land to take certain
steps. I will also seek advice on that but as you say it's the
EPA's responsibility to make sure that site's dealt with
appropriately."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Classroom Dust Blamed for Former Teacher's Death
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Naylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that teacher
Joe Gallagher loved making things with wood -- but, tragically, it
was his passion that would eventually lead to his death, due to
asbestos cancer.

Mr Gallagher's widow, Maureen, said her husband was unaware the
dust which swirled around his classroom was deadly.  She said "Joe
used to tell me that the asbestos was flying around the room when
he reached up to pull out the wood from the racking.

"At that time you were unaware of the dangers.

"People used to say there were safe versions of asbestos and
unsafe types, but that is rubbish, there is no safe asbestos."

Mrs Gallagher, from Shipley, said her husband began suffering
health problems in 1998 when in his 50s.  As his condition
deteriorated over the years, he was eventually diagnosed with the
terminal cancer mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos.  And
Mrs Gallagher said this led to a heartbreaking moment with his
young grandson.

"We'd had out grandson, Ethan, over for the day and after tea Joe
was driving him home to our son Richard's home.

"Joe said Ethan, who would only have been three or four at the
time, said: 'Grandad I'm really going to miss you when you go, are
you going to miss me too?'

"Joe knew that his condition was terminal and he told me he had to
stop the car, switch off the engine, get into the back of the car
and just cuddle Ethan.

"He said he was in floods of tears."

Mr Gallagher's inquest in Derby heard that he had already received
a payout after developing the lung condition plural plaques in
1998.  The hearing was told that he and his wife moved to France
in 2005 and while he was playing football with his grandson in
April 2013 noticed he was becoming severely breathless.

Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court was told that a doctor
examined him and diagnosed him with a second lung disease,
mesothelioma.  The Gallaghers moved back to Derbyshire and Mr
Gallagher was treated at the Royal Derby Hospital. The 70-year-old
died at Ilkeston Community Hospital on September 3.  Mr
Gallagher's detailed work history was read out in court from a
statement prepared by him before his death.  In it he said: "In or
about April 1995 I was investigated for a chest infection, had a
chest x-ray and was diagnosed with pleural plaques.

"I contacted a solicitor through my teaching union, the NASUWT,
and received a settlement claim from Staffordshire County Council
in 1998 as it was accepted that I was exposed to asbestos while
working at Warslow Secondary School between 1973 and 1988.

"In April 2013 I began to develop further chest problems.

"At the time my wife and I had been living in France for six to
seven years and I was examined by a local doctor.

"In July 2013, I suffered quite severe breathlessness while
playing football with my grandson.

"Following a CT scan I was diagnosed with mesothelioma."

Mr Gallagher's extensive working history included spells working
as a joiner in Chesterfield and Sheffield before he studied
teaching and began working at Warslow, which is 10 miles north of
Ashbourne.

A post-mortem examination on his body, undertaken in Ilkeston by
Dr Markus Henn, gave the cause of death as mesothelioma.

Mrs Gallagher, 67, of Hardy Barn, Shipley, said she met her
husband in 1968 when they worked together at the former Trebor
sweet factory in Chesterfield.  They married the following year
and have three sons -- Martin, 43, who lives in Wiltshire,
Richard, 40, who lives in the Dordogne, and Rob, 33, who lives in
Shipley with his mother.

She said: "Joe was always making things with wood. He made
furniture, tables, wardrobes, he would do anything for anyone.

"He loved his grandchildren and the children he taught, always
tasking them on school trips and helping them in the classroom.

"He just had this huge generous nature with people.

"He loved sport, cricket, football, we made wine together and
loved visiting National Trust properties.

"He also loved music -- jazz, classical and modern.

"Since his funeral I have not really had the chance to write to
everyone to thank them for their support but we, as a family, are
very grateful to everyone who came and helped support us."

Paul McCandless, Assistant Coroner for Derby and South Derbyshire,
praised the detailed work history provided by Mr Gallagher and his
family.  He said: "Fundamentally from the outset to the end of the
well-produced, interesting and accomplished working history
provided in the statement by Mr Gallagher's family and made during
his lifetime it is clear that he was exposed to asbestos during
his time working as a teacher."

Chris Keates is the general secretary of the NASUWT, the teaching
union that helped Mr Gallagher make the claim against
Staffordshire County Council in 1998.

He said: "One teacher with mesothelioma is too many.

"Asbestos is a silent killer and every effort should be made to
avoid these tragedies.

"This is why the NASUWT has been campaigning with other
organisations to have a national plan to remove asbestos from all
education workplaces to ensure that the school workforce and the
children and young people that use these buildings are kept safe."

As well as his widow and children, Mr Gallagher also leaves
grandchildren Isabelle, 10 and Ethan, five.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyneside Traders Exposed to Deadly Dust
--------------------------------------------------------
Will Metcalfe, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that a former
electrician suffering from an industrial diseased has urged people
to be cautious of asbestos as figures reveal tradesmen in
Tyneside, England, could come into contact with the substance more
than 100 times a year.

Simon Clark, was diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a life-
threatening, aggressive form of cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos -- in 2012, aged just 52.

The Health and Safety Executive has said tradesmen in Newcastle
could come into contact with asbestos an average of 115 times a
year following a new survey.

On hearing the figures Simon made a plea to fellow tradesmen.  He
said: "When I was younger I didn't think of the dangers of
asbestos and I must have been exposed to it frequently. Since
being diagnosed, I've had to give up my work and let some of my
employees go -- which is the hardest thing I've ever done. It is
vitally important that everybody knows when they might be exposed
and takes the correct steps to protect themselves."

As well as illustrating how often tradespeople in Newcastle can be
exposed to asbestos, the survey revealed some common myths
believed by those at risk, with four per cent believing that
drinking a glass of water will help protect them from the deadly
dust and 33 per cent thinking that opening a window will help to
keep them safe.

Asbestos can be found in walls and ceilings, or the structure of a
building, as well as a host of other places like floor tiles,
boilers, toilet cisterns, guttering and soffits.  It can be
disturbed by basic maintenance work like drilling holes and
sanding and once disturbed, the microscopic fibres can prove
lethal if breathed in, causing lung disease and cancer.

The research, undertaken by Censuswide in September 2014, shows
that while more than half (53 per cent) of tradespeople in Britain
knew that asbestos could be in old buildings built before 1970,
only 15 per cent knew that it could still be found in buildings
built up to the year 2000.

To encourage tradespeople to think about asbestos on every job the
HSE has launched a new safety campaign.

Philip White, HSE's Chief Inspector of Construction, said:
"Asbestos is still a very real danger and the survey findings
suggest that the people who come into contact with it regularly
often don't know where it could be and worryingly don't know how
to deal with it correctly, which could put them in harm's way.

"Our new campaign aims to help tradespeople understand some of the
simple steps they can take to stay safe. Our new web app is
designed for use on a job so workers can easily identify if they
are likely to face danger and can then get straight forward advice
to help them do the job safely."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Upholds Ruling for Micarta Case Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a federal appeals court has
refused to disturb a summary judgment award that was based on an
asbestos plaintiff's inconsistent testimony about the type of
Micarta paneling that was used on board Naval vessels where the he
worked and whether it could have caused his mesothelioma.

The 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in
favor of defendants on Oct. 8, holding that the inconsistencies,
combined with evidence that the Navy refused to approve asbestos-
containing Micarta for use on its ships, left little to
contemplate if the case were to be tried.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Delays in Removing Wangkatjungka Fibro Worry MP
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the Stephen Dawson, Member for Mining and
Pastoral in Australia, is calling for urgent action to deal with
two asbestos-ridden buildings in a remote Kimberley community.

There are asbestos panels in two buildings in the Fitzroy Valley
community of Wangkatjungka, one of which is opposite a children's
playground.  The buildings are due to be demolished to make way
for eight new federally-funded houses but the work has been
delayed due to a hold-up in funding approval.

Mr Dawson said the buildings should have been dealt with before
the community sports carnival.

"We know those buildings are not safe, we know kids have been
playing in them," he said.

"In fact, I know that when the sports carnival was in town at the
same time last year there was activity in those buildings.

"So we have to ensure that it doesn't happen again this year and
people are kept away and people are kept safe, particularly kids."

The Department of Housing said the contract to demolish the
houses, and construct new ones, was awarded in September and the
work would begin in late 2014.

A spokesman said the department has also contacted the
Commonwealth-funded Remote Jobs and Communities Program.

The Kurungal Council, which represents the Wangkatjungka
community, said, in the meantime, fluoro barricade netting had
been placed around the building with warning signs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit Tossed for Lack of Causation Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported
that although evidence suggested that a woman's husband may have
been exposed to asbestos, it did not prove that the possible
exposure was the cause of her mesothelioma, the state Superior
Court has ruled.

On Oct. 3, a three-judge panel upheld Philadelphia Court of Common
Pleas Judge Sandra Mazer Moss' grant of summary judgment to
defendants in a series of asbestos cases brought by Daniel
Haldaman, executor to the estate of Gerda W. Haldaman.

In the court's memorandum opinion, Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy said
the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to show that
second-hand exposure caused Gerda Haldaman's illness.

"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," Judge Mundy said.

Additionally, Mundy said the testimony of Haldaman's husband's
Bethlehem Steel co-workers as to the presence of asbestos in the
workplace failed to establish that Haldaman's husband had been
exposed to asbestos dust on the job.

"Those statements identifying particular products and times did
not mention the presence of [Gerda Haldaman's husband] Ray
Haldaman, and specific references to Ray Haldaman did not place
him in proximity of specific asbestos-containing products at
specific times," Judge Mundy said.

The Superior Court, Judge Mundy said, adopted Judge Moss' Aug. 22,
2012, opinion in the case.  In her opinion, Judge Moss said Gerda
Haldaman frequently washed her husband's work clothing, which she
said was dirty and covered with dust.

One of Ray Haldaman's co-workers, John Weiss, testified that
changing the asbestos brakes on cranes in the facility created
dust, but he could not recall if Haldaman was ever exposed to the
brake dust, Moss said.  The plaintiff identified CBS Corp.
(formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corp.), Eaton Corp. and
General Electric as manufacturers of asbestos-containing brakes,
Judge Moss said.

"With regard to CBS, plaintiff fails to provide evidence her
husband was frequently and regularly in proximity to others
working with respirable asbestos Westinghouse products," Judge
Moss said. "Weiss listed Westinghouse as a common brand used at
Bethlehem Steel but could not say if [Ray] Haldaman was present
when its brakes were used."

Judge Moss also said that even if Ray Haldaman was in contact with
the Westinghouse brakes, there was no evidence that they contained
asbestos.

Judge Moss applied the same reasoning to the other brake
manufacturers, as well as the manufacturers of the mining cranes,
adding that there was also no evidence that Ray Haldaman brought
brake dust home.

The plaintiff also sued Kentile Floors Inc. According to Moss,
Weiss testified that Haldaman worked with Kentile floor tiles,
which Weiss said he was told contained asbestos.  Weiss also said
that he worked on many tile jobs with Haldaman, but could only
recall a handful of jobs that took less than a week to complete,
according to Moss.

"Plaintiff stated she washed her husband's clothes once a week.
[Ray Haldaman's] co-worker could only recall a few occasions where
he and Haldaman worked with Kentile tile," Judge Moss said. "Thus
there is only evidence of two to four occasions when plaintiff
could have been exposed to asbestos-containing dust from
Haldaman's work clothes. This does not amount to frequent or
regular exposure."

The attorney for the plaintiff, Lamont G. McClure Jr. of Law
Offices of Peter G. Angelos in Bethlehem, Pa., declined to
comment. John Patrick McShea III of the McShea Law Firm in
Philadelphia represented CBS and did not return call seeking
comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Grants Oklahoma $240,000 to Reduce Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has awarded a $204,000 grant for Oklahoma to
help reduce asbestos exposure in schools.

The agency announced that the state Labor Department will use the
grant for compliance monitoring and assistance, public outreach,
inspections, enforcement actions and employee training.

EPA officials say asbestos is commonly found in a variety of
construction materials and industrial products. Federal
regulations require public and private schools to inspect
facilities for asbestos-containing material and take action to
prevent or reduce hazards.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winemaker's Mesothelioma Blamed on Filter
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that
there is new evidence that some wine-making practices could
increase the chance of developing malignant pleural mesothelioma.
Italian researchers are reporting the first case of mesothelioma
in a person whose only known exposure to asbestos was in the
winemaking business.

The man worked for an Italian winemaker from 1960 to 1988.
According to the authors of the new report, the winemaker treated
the wine for impurities using a filter made of asbestos. As
authors Alessandro Nemo and Stefano Silvestri of Florence's
Institute for Study and Prevention of Cancer explain, "The filter
was created by dispersing in the wine asbestos fibers followed by
diatomite while the wine was circulating several times and
clogging a prefilter made of a dense stainless steel net."

Drs. Nemo and Silvestri report that the asbestos exposure which
probably triggered the man's mesothelioma could have occurred
during the mixing of dry chrysotile asbestos fibers into the wine
as well as during the filter replacement. The researchers had to
estimate the average level of the patient's exposure and the
cumulative dose since winemakers do not typically monitor airborne
asbestos fibers.

Although this is the first mesothelioma case associated
exclusively with the winemaking business, asbestos exposure in
winemaking is not unheard of. Since 1993, the Italian National
Mesothelioma Register has recorded 8 cases of mesothelioma where
the patient spent at least part of his working life in the
winemaking business.

Four of these cases reported using asbestos filters, but all four
of those mesothelioma patients had also worked in other jobs that
exposed them to asbestos, so no direct correlation could be made
between their winemaking exposure and their illness. The authors
of the current study, published in The Annals of Occupational
Hygiene, conclude, "For the information hitherto available, this
is the first mesothelioma case with exclusive exposure in the job
of winemaking."

The case highlights the pervasiveness of asbestos, a naturally
occurring mineral once used in dozens of industries. The majority
of mesothelioma cases are linked to occupational exposure, but
asbestos continues to pose a threat to laypeople as an insulator
in older homes and public buildings, as a component of automobile
brake pads, and even as part of road gravel dust in some states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrison Commissioners to Discuss Fibro Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
News-Journal reported that commissioners in Harrison County,
Texas, will consider approving an asbestos study at the county
airport's terminal building when it meets.

An asbestos study is required if the county wants to apply for a
Texas Department of Transportation grant to renovate or build a
new terminal, Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor said.

Taylor said the commissioners court will seek a firm to take
samples and test the materials, the flooring and insulation of the
building.

Airport renovations were discussed in a budget workshop in July,
and Taylor proposed rebuilding the terminal to use as a county-
owned venue to accommodate conferences or meetings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Cir Rules Against Former Navy Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled
that summary judgment was proper in an asbestos case where the
decedent's only evidence was that he "just knew" asbestos was used
in the products at issue.

Judge Michael A. Chagares delivered the Oct. 8 opinion, affirming
the lower court's judgment, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Thomas I.
Vanaskie concurred.

Plaintiff Taylor Stokes filed the appeal on behalf of decedent
Raymond Stevens, who developed mesothelioma as a result of
asbestos exposure and later died from the injury while his case
was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Stevens alleged he was exposed to asbestos-containing products
manufactured by defendant CBS Corporation, formerly known as
Westinghouse, and distributed by defendant International Paper Co.

More specifically, Stevens claimed he was exposed to asbestos
associated with Micarta panels the he installed aboard U.S. Navy
vessels between 1960 and 1985.

Stevens' deposition testimony from before his death is the only
evidence of exposure provided by the plaintiffs. In his testimony,
Stevens said he cut and installed green composite paneling but
could not recall the manufacturer of the products or its precise
name.  He also originally claimed that the panels were marked as
containing asbestos, but he later admitted that he never actually
saw the word asbestos on the panels themselves.

However, the defendants requested summary judgment after
presenting an affidavit from Dr. David Baldwin, the former general
manager of Westinghouse's Micarta division.

Baldwin testified that Westinghouse did manufacture the paneling,
but only some contained asbestos. Additionally, the version that
contained asbestos was never approved for use on Navy vessels.
Instead, non-asbestos, paper-based panels were used aboard the
ships.

Baldwin provided letters and construction specifications
prohibiting the use of asbestos in paneling to further his
testimony.

The lower court concluded that the decedent's "internally
inconsistent" testimony could not create a genuine issue of
material fact. As a result, the court granted summary judgment.

The appeals court agreed that the plaintiff failed to provide
sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment request.

"An essential element of the plaintiff's maritime products
liability claim is that the products to which he was exposed
actually contained asbestos," Chagares wrote. "On this issue, we
do not see how any reasonable jury could credit Steven's
internally inconsistent deposition testimony and return a verdict
for the plaintiff."

In fact, when asked how Stevens knew the panels contained
asbestos, he said he "just knew" asbestos was used in "that type
of material."

However, the appeals court held Stevens' testimony is "precisely
the kind of speculative testimony that is insufficient to create a
genuine issue of material fact."

Because the decedent failed to provide any evidence to controvert
the defendants' arguments, summary judgment was proper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkCover Finds Fibro in Sydney Homes
------------------------------------------------------
Lorna Knowles, writing for Yahoo! News, reported that deadly
loose-fill asbestos has been discovered in houses in Sydney's
western and northern suburbs, the first positive tests for the
carcinogen in the city.

Peter Dunphy from WorkCover NSW said investigators had unearthed
four laboratory tests from the early 1980s that positively
identified houses in Warringah, the Hills and Bankstown. A fourth
test identified a house in Lithgow.

"The properties are in three areas, so it's in Yagoona, in the
Bankstown local government area, they're at Carlingford in the
Hills District local government area and and they're at Balgowlah
in the Warringah local council area," Mr Dunphy said.

Mr Dunphy is leading an investigation into the number of homes
across the state that could contain the deadly product, which was
pumped into roof cavities during the 1960s and 1970s.

The authority expects more positive tests in the city, he said.

"It will help us with the inquiry, to try and identify and
quantify the number of properties in NSW," Mr Dunphy said of the
finding.

"The records are quite useful in that they are definitive
results".

Up to now, WorkCover had only found 17 houses in NSW containing
the product -- in Queanbeyan, Palarang, Yass and Orange.

The discovery has prompted the authority to add Warringah, the
Hills and Bankstown to a list of local government areas eligible
for free ceiling inspections. The free testing service is limited
to homes built before 1980.

Mr Dunphy said his investigators discovered the test results while
trawling archives of government agencies.  He said the records
indicated the Sydney properties had the material removed from the
ceiling, but there was a risk that residual fibres remained.

Mr Dunphy said it did not appear the loose-fill asbestos found in
the Sydney properties was the notorious Mr Fluffy brand.

"It is interesting that each of the properties had different types
of asbestos, so it will help us in trying to source where the
materials were from, who was the supplier of the materials or
whether they were homeowners who somehow sought the materials
through other avenues," he said.

Mr Dunphy said the same records indicated there were less than 10
properties in Sydney that contained loose-fill asbestos.

"But we do want to make sure that we alert the public and that
people are aware that there is that potential that we offer those
free testing services," he said.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the home insulation business Mr Fluffy
sold and installed loose-fill asbestos in ceilings of homes in the
ACT and parts of NSW.

This year, more than 1,000 Canberra homeowners were told their
properties were contaminated with the deadly carcinogen, despite
safety assurances following a government-funded clean-up program
in the 1980s.

In August, the NSW Government announced it would investigate the
extent of the problem across the state.

Mr Dunphy said it was vital homeowners did not try to take samples
themselves. Anyone wanting to arrange a free ceiling sample test
should contact WorkCover on 13 10 50.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Commissioners Give OK for Fibro Study
------------------------------------------------------
Robin Y. Richardson, writing for Marshall News Messenger, reported
that the commissioners at Harrison County, in Texas, okayed a
motion to enter into contract with Environmental Tech LLC to
provide an asbestos study on the county's airport terminal, at a
maximum cost of $3,000.

The amount will be paid out of the sundry line item of the
county's budget.

"Before TxDOT (Texas Department of Public Transportation) will
engage in (a grant process) -- whether we're renovating or
rebuilding -- we have to provide them with an asbestos study,"
Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor said.

"The environmental study will just (involve) the staff of that
agency going in to take samples," said Taylor, noting the samples
will be tested for asbestos.

"We don't know if there is any asbestos in that building at all,"
he said. "At this time, we don't know."

Taylor said the terminal project a long-term priorities he had on
his list to address.

"I proposed that a building there could be a multi-use building,"
Taylor said. "There's nowhere to hold a large meeting, a
convention.

"We can't seat or serve a large crowd," he said.

Taylor said he proposed the idea during the budget workshop a few
months ago, suggesting that the county could sale the county's
annex on the downtown square, and move the staff from the annex to
the terminal, if converted into a multi-purpose building.

He said, right now, the building isn't useful. It's mainly just a
place to get in and out of the rain and use the restroom; but, if
renovated or rebuilt, it could provide pilot facilities and
possibly be leased as private office space for lawyers, needing it
on a temporary basis, for a day or so, said Taylor.

"It's just not a user-friendly building in its current state," the
judge said. "So, the sky is the limit for multi-purpose use."
Taylor noted that the county hasn't built a new facility in years,
other than the jail annex. He said they acquired the elections
office as well as the county annex.

"The annex has been great, but it's now in need of repair," Taylor
said. "We suffer from the age of our building."

"This project could see so many benefits," he said of going forth
with an asbestos study in order to apply for grant funds to either
renovate or rebuild the airport terminal to make it more user-
friendly.

"If the commissioners find it fit to proceed, I think it's
manageable," he said of the idea.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $100,000 Grant to Rid Community Center of Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Schutzman, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reported that a
$100,000 grant will be used to rid a local community center in the
city of Poughkeepsie, in New York, of asbestos, said Family
Services officials via news release.

The grant money, secured by Assemblyman Frank Skartados, will fix
the "considerable damage" still remaining at the City of
Poughkeepsie-based Family Partnership Center, damage caused by
tropical storms Irene and Lee in 2011, said Brian Doyle, CEO of
Family Services.

Family Services, a nonprofit social services agency, runs the
100,000 square-foot center, which houses a number of community-
based agencies and programs.

The center's boiler room and lower level flooded when the adjacent
Fall Kill Creek overflowed during the storms.

A flooded building "can expose asbestos through damaged flooring,
drywall and ceilings," according to asbestos.com.

The center's heat, water, sprinkler, electrical and telephone
systems were impacted by the asbestos contamination, which hasn't
been removed yet, though much of the other damage was fixed right
away, Doyle said.

Skartados, D-Milton, is running against challenger Sakima Green-
Brown, a Republican from the City of Poughkeepsie, for the 104th
Assembly District seat.

The center is a critical one to keep open since the organizations
are "doing essential work for the community by helping thousands
of people to overcome adversity and improve their lives," said
Skartados, who presented Family Services with the award this
afternoon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim's Family Allowed to Sue Former Joiners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evening Express reported that three judges have allowed the family
of a man who died from cancer to take his former Aberdeen,
England, employer to court over claims he was exposed to asbestos.

The relatives of Kenneth Ferguson claim he contracted mesothelioma
as a consequence of working for J&A Lawson (Joiners) Ltd of
Aberdeen.  Their legal team claim Mr Ferguson was exposed to
asbestos during his time working for the firm as an apprentice
joiner between January 1968 and January 1973.

He was 72-years-old when he passed away in August 2006.  His legal
team have gone to the Court of Session in Edinburgh in a bid to
seek compensation for his surviving relatives.

At a previous hearing, judge Lord Uist gave the go ahead for the
lawyers representing the Fergusons to seek damages from the
company.

Solicitors acting for Lawson's appealed the decision, saying that
Lord Uist had made a number of legal errors with his decision.

However, civil appeal judges Lady Paton, Lady Smith and Lord
Bonomy ruled that Lord Uist hadn't made any mistakes and that the
matter could be heard in court.

In a written judgment issued at the Court of Session, Lady Paton
wrote: "In the result, it is our opinion that it would be
equitable to allow this action to proceed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Abatement Continues in Mount Manresa
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Porpora, writing for SILive.com, reported that the New York
City Department of Buildings has issued a stop work order for all
construction and land clearing at Mount Manresa while asbestos
abatement in two of the site's buildings is completed.

A partial work order was issued by the Buildings Department but
site clearing was still permitted.  The amended work order --
issued after residents and Borough President James Oddo expressed
concerns about air quality and asbestos exposure -- halts all
work, except the asbestos abatement.

"They [area residents] are concerned that demolition work is
occurring, contrary to the partial stop work order. If this is the
case, the owners of the property are potentially putting their
neighbors at risk of significant asbestos exposure," said Oddo in
an Oct. 9 letter to Rick Chandler, commissioner of the Buildings
Department.

The stop work order will remain in effect until the asbestos
abatement is finished and reviewed by the city Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), said Alexander Schnell, a
Buildings Department spokesman.

"We want to ensure that they [contractors] are only in those
buildings for the asbestos abatement, and that's the only movement
taking place," he said.

"It's a large site and this will make it easier for us to monitor
the site and make sure the asbestos work is the only work being
done," added Schnell.

Asbestos problems at the controversial Manresa project have led
the city to levy $67,400 in violations against the Savo Brothers
of Prince's Bay and other parties involved in the demolition at
the former Jesuit retreat house. The Savo Brothers  bought the
site from the Society of Jesus for $15 million, and plan to build
250 townhouse units there,

However, residents and members of "The Committee to Save Mount
Manresa" are concerned about the asbestos removal work.

"We want a full stop work order because we don't think the
contractors that are being used are trustworthy," said Barbara
Sanchez, president of The Committee to Save Mount Manresa, noting
that residents are concerned about the air quality.

"These contractors they are bringing in have bad records. We want
an investigation," she added.

The Savo Brothers had hired a licensed asbestos investigator who
failed to discover asbestos in two buildings on the site.
Inspectors found friable, or airborne, asbestos in piping
insulation of one of the buildings and promptly issued a stop work
order on the specific site.  Under that order from the DEP, Savo
Brothers had to find an asbestos abatement company to safely
remove the minerals before continuing demolition of the affected
building.

According to a DEP spokesman, Paul Jennings is the new certified
asbestos investigator brought on board on Sept. 29.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Issue Narrows Over "Misrepresentation" Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reported that the dispute over unsealing evidence of alleged
misrepresentations by plaintiffs in an asbestos-related bankruptcy
has apparently narrowed.

The only source of disagreement remaining is whether settlement
amounts should remain sealed, according to a filing from the
plaintiffs who allege they have been injured by products
containing asbestos.

When U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Judge Hodges of the Western
District of North Carolina estimated the liability of Garlock
Sealing Technologies, LLC, he found that Garlock likely owes $125
million to asbestos plaintiffs. He rejected the plaintiffs'
argument that Garlock's liability is around $1 billion to $1.3
billion after finding that there was evidence of misrepresentation
by plaintiffs' lawyers in several cases that Garlock settled in
the past or in which Garlock lost jury verdicts.

The judge found that some plaintiffs alleged they were exposed to
asbestos from different sources in civil court than when they
submitted claims to the trusts formed after companies went through
bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liability.

The injured plaintiffs said settlements amounts should remain
sealed or be delinked from the plaintiffs who received them.
According to the plaintiffs, those who have requested the
unsealing of the evidence leading to Judge Hodges' decision don't
dispute there is a "constitutional right to privacy and financial
information and none of the objectors identifies any reason -- let
alone a 'compelling reason' -- why the public has an interest in
disclosure of the settlement amounts received by any individual
asbestos claimants."

Moreover, the plaintiffs said that Judge Hodges did not consider
the settlement amounts in reaching his estimation of Garlock's
liability. If the judge did not consider the settlement amounts,
they are not judicial records, their lawyers said.

Daniel C. Bruton of Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A. in Winston-Salem,
N.C. and Natalie D. Ramsey of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker &
Rhoads, LLP in Wilmington, Del., wrote the filing for the injured
individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Law Shields Heidelberg From Fibro Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reported that a Pennsylvania
federal judge dismissed a successor to the Mergenthaler Linotype
company, Heidelberg USA Inc., from an asbestos wrongful death
suit, ruling that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate asbestos
exposure occurred with the frequency and regularity required under
Pennsylvania state product liability law.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno granted Heidelberg's motion
for summary judgment, finding that despite plaintiff Donna
Palmer's evidence that her deceased husband, James Palmer, was
exposed to raw asbestos while working as a machinist repairing and
rebuilding Mergenthaler linotype machines in the 1960s and 1970s,
the exposure did not occur on regular basis.

Judge Robreno accepted evidence that Mergenthaler used raw
asbestos dust in its linotype machines and that Palmer had been
exposed to it "many times," but said it was spread out over the
course of his employment. Pennsylvania state law requires a
plaintiff to demonstrate exposure occurred with sufficient
frequency, regularity and proximity to prove the exposure is the
proximate cause of an asbestos-related condition.

"Plaintiff's evidence establishes that, during a 15-year period,
[James Palmer] experienced such exposures a handful of times,"
Judge Robreno wrote. "Therefore, applying Pennsylvania law, no
reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that plaintiff's
exposure was a substantial factor in the development of his
mesothelioma."

Donna Palmer sued Heidelberg and Harris Corp. in state court in
2012 shortly before husband's death from mesothelioma. Prior to
his death, James Palmer provided deposition testimony stating he
frequently used asbestos dust to pack spaces in linotype machines
operated by Knight-Ridder Inc., formerly known as Twin Coast
Newspapers Inc. He testified that he used compressed air to blow
asbestos dust off machinery, dispersing it throughout his
workplace.

Heidelberg had argued it should not be held liable for products or
component parts that it did not manufacture, claiming it did not
manufacture or place into the stream of commerce the asbestos
products at issue.

Chris Placitella of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC, who represents
Donna Palmer, told Law360 that he and his team knew from the onset
that this might considered a difficult case and that claims
against Harris Corp. would continue.

"We look forward to trial against the remaining defendant,"
Placitella said.

Attorneys for the defendants did not immediately respond to a
request for comment from Law360.

The plaintiff is represented by Claudine Q. Homolash of CQH Firm
and by Gonen Haklay of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC.

Heidelberg is represented by Kevin Dooley of Kasowitz Benson
Torres & Friedman LLP and by Barbara J. Buba and J. Patrick
Bradley of Wilbraham Lawler Buba.

Harris Corp. is represented by Penelope B. O'Connell and Elizabeth
A. Weill of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC and by Richard A.
Menchini of O'Hare Parnagian LLP.

The case is Donna Palmer v. Heidelberg USA Inc., et al., case
number 5:12-cv-05034, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP to Appeal Court Win by Fibro Victim
--------------------------------------------------------
Ian Kirkwood, writing for Newcastle Herald, reported that a man
from Cessnock, in New South Wales, awarded a record $2.2million
payout for mesothelioma is stunned that BHP Billiton is appealing
the verdict.

Steven Dunning, 54, won the settlement in July after Judge William
Kearns of the Dust Diseases Tribunal described the case as "one of
the worst cases of mesothelioma" he had seen.

At the time, Slater & Gordon lawyer Joanne Wade said she expected
BHP Billiton to appeal the decision.  She said it had settled the
rest of its Newcastle steelworks cases out of court but had fought
Mr Dunning every step of the way.

In a statement, BHP Billiton said: "After careful consideration of
the judgment, the company has concluded that the findings and
application of legal principles made by the trial judge are such
that review by the NSW Court of Appeal is warranted.

"As the matter is now before the court, it is not appropriate for
any party to comment further."

Mr Dunning's wife, Roma Dunning, said that she and her husband
were dismayed at the company's "heartless" decision to keep
fighting the case.

"Steven hasn't seen a cent yet after four years of fighting," Ms
Dunning said.

"Three weeks after Steven's verdict, BHP announced a profit for
the year of $15billion.

"That's $15,000million in one year. My Stephen was awarded
$2.2million for their steelworks cancer and they don't want to
give him anything.

"He has terminal mesothelioma. He is incredibly short of breath,
he is on medication for pain and depression.

"Every morning he gets out of bed and he vomits. He's a
grandfather to one little girl but he won't see that girl grow
up."

Ms Dunning said she hoped the appeal would fail but if BHP
succeeded she expected Slater & Gordon would seek leave to appeal
to the High Court of Australia.

Ms Wade said that BHP Billiton's disappointing decision to appeal
reflected its lack of compassion towards Mr Dunning.

"We think this appeal is baseless, but BHP has a right to exercise
its financial muscle -- and it has," Ms Wade said.

"It has argued every available legal point for the duration of
this case and it now continues to do so.

"It is not fair that Mr Dunning and his family are still caught up
in this legal battle which has lasted for four years."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trapped Workers Exposed to Fibro After Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Cergol, writing for NBC New York, reported that two workers
contracted to do asbestos work were rescued after becoming trapped
in debris when a ceiling collapsed at a former government building
under renovation on Long Island, police say.

The workers, both men, were described as "conscious" and "alert"
by police who pulled them out of the rubble after the collapse at
the former Department of Social Services building on County Seat
Drive in Mineola.  They are being decontaminated after being
exposed to asbestos.

EV-68 Confirmed at NJ School, Marks 1st Case in County: Official
The injured men, aged 22 and 46, and the other 17 workers at the
building at the time of the collapse are employees of PAL
Environmental Services in Queens, which was hired to do prepare
the building for asbestos removal. The building has been
unoccupied for several years.

Both injured men are expected to survive. No other injuries were
reported.

A deli worker across the street, Christopher Higgins, says he
heard a crash and saw dust rising.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana to Receive $137,000 to Reduce Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Pekema, writing for NBC33.com, reported that large amounts
of asbestos in Louisiana schools have prompted the EPA to send
money to better monitor the poison.

According to the report, Louisiana is getting $137,000 to better
reduce asbestos exposure in schools. Just last year, crews removed
the dangerous material from LSU, Baker High, Glen Oaks High,
Zachary Elementary, Brownsfield Elementary, and Brookstown
Elementary schools, just to name a few.

Federal and state regulations require public and private schools
to protect school children and employees from Asbestos exposure --
but there's still a lot in Louisiana.  Asbestos exposure can
increase your risk of developing lung disease, including cancer.
School districts are tasked with self-inspections -- and they have
to come up with ways to remove it.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Led to Death of British Legion Member
------------------------------------------------------------
The Oxford Times reported that a former Royal British Legion
member who raised more than GBP115,000 for its poppy appeal died
from asbestos exposure, an inquest heard.

Dennis Harper, 82, spent 15 years fundraising for the Woodstock
branch with his wife Josephine at Cherwell Valley Services, off
junction 10 of the M40.

An inquest at Oxfordshire Coroner's Court heard he died from
asbestos exposure on May 30, after a tumour was found in his ribs.

The legion's Woodstock branch vice-chairman Gordon Hollis, who
grew up with Mr Harper, said: "He was a very nice and
straightforward chap and I always got on well with him all my
life.

"He worked hard for the legion and was a good helper."

Mr Harper, of Bear Close in Woodstock, was exposed to the
hazardous material while working for building contractor DA Berry
from 1961 to 1969.

His job included painting and decorating in new large housing
estates in Oxfordshire and he came into contact with asbestolux,
used for insulation.  He went on to work for Blackwell's bookshop
as a maintenance engineer for 26 years and was not exposed there.

Mr Harper, who served in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical
Engineers during his National Service, complained to his GP about
sharp chest and stomach pains in August last year.  A scan
eventually revealed the tumour and his condition deteriorated,
before he died at Sobell House Hospice in Headington.  A post
mortem examination showed he died from mesothelioma, a form of
cancer most commonly caused by asbestos exposure.

Coroner Darren Salter recorded a conclusion of industrial disease.

In August, the Oxford Mail reported that the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) predicted a peak in asbestos deaths in Oxfordshire
from 2015 to 2020 as the delayed harmful effects of exposure come
into effect.

The mineral was prevalent in industrial buildings between the
1950s and 1970s.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Unseals Evidence in Garlock Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reported that after a protracted fight, a federal judge has ruled
that all of the evidence that led him to find misrepresentations
by plaintiffs in an asbestos-related bankruptcy must be unsealed.

When U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Judge Hodges of the Western
District of North Carolina estimated the liability of Garlock
Sealing Technologies, LLC, in January, he found that Garlock
likely owes $125 million to asbestos plaintiffs.

At that time, he rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Garlock's
liability is around $1 billion to $1.3 billion after finding that
there was evidence of misrepresentation by plaintiffs' lawyers in
several cases that Garlock settled in the past or in which Garlock
lost jury verdicts.

The judge in January found that some plaintiffs alleged they were
exposed to asbestos from different sources in civil court than
when they submitted claims to the trusts formed after companies
went through bankruptcy because of asbestos-related liability.

During a hearing, Judge Hodges ruled from the bench that the only
information that should be redacted are social security numbers,
birth dates, financial account numbers, names of minors and
medical information except for diseases related to asbestos.
The judge said he also should not have closed some of the
proceedings in January.

The judge said that the First Amendment applies to the records
even though the estimation proceeding wasn't a final adjudication
of what Garlock owes to claimants who allege their exposure to
Garlock's products caused them mesothelioma cancer.

"It should have been public," Judge Hodges said. "This is the type
of proceeding that would have been historically open. Public
access would have served a positive role in the functioning of the
court by enabling the public to evaluate the court's decision
based on all of the evidence rather than on simply part of it."

Judge Hodges overruled Garlock's assertion of attorney-product
privilege or attorney work-product privilege to keep sealed major
expense authorizations forms documenting the approval of
settlement decisions and the mental impressions and opinions of
in-house and trial counsel. Judge Hodges also unsealed Garlock's
trial evaluation forms with outside counsel's trial plans and
assessment of cases

U.S. District Judge Max O. Judge Cogburn Jr. of the Western
District of North Carolina in July reversed Judge Hodges' decision
to seal the evidence that led to his estimation of Garlock's
liability.

Judge Cogburn remanded the case for the lower court to conduct
fact-finding about the public's right of access under common law
or the First Amendment.

Asbestos claimants and their law firms, as well as the official
committee of asbestos personal injury claimants, moved to seal
questionnaires filled out by plaintiffs, information claimants
submitted to the trusts formed out of the bankruptcies of other
asbestos defendants, and evidence referencing settlements by
asbestos claimants, among other information.?

The documents were not unsealed immediately because they must
still be redacted.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Toll Rises From Wunderlich Factory
---------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Lamperd and Monique Hore, writing for Herald Sun, reported
that the asbestos toll from Melbourne's factory of death has
doubled, with scores more reports of nearby residents who have
died or who are sick.

The shock news comes as tests for the Sunday Herald Sun on ceiling
cavities near the old Wunderlich factory in Sunshine North
revealed widespread contamination.

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has called for asbestos to
be removed from affected houses.

The Health Department conducted air quality tests on schools in
the area and found no evidence of asbestos in the air. Local GPs
were warned that patients may present with asbestos diseases, and
residents were warned about the dangers of renovating without
protective clothing.

The Sunday Herald Sun revealed that 16 people were known to have
died and eight had fallen ill from mesothelioma, lung cancer and
asbestosis simply from living near the Wunderlich factory.

Since then, the Sunday Herald Sun has learned of another 17
possible deaths and seven further people sick as a result of
exposure to the deadly asbestos fibres.

Despite revelations that two houses -- of two tested -- had
ceiling space asbestos contamination, no public authority was
willing to take responsibility for broader house testing in the
area.

The Sunday Herald Sun commissioned contamination experts to sample
dust in roof spaces from eight further houses north and east of
the factory.  The laboratory report showed six of those eight
contained invisible asbestos dust.  None of the houses had
asbestos roof tiles. It took the number of contaminated houses to
eight out of 10 tested.

Compton Pd resident Peter Thomson, whose ceiling space test
confirmed asbestos fibres, was angry at the lack of information.

"If it wasn't for the Sunday Herald Sun this still would not have
come out," he said.

"There could be 2000 or 3000 homes sitting on a time bomb. It
leaves a dirty taste in your mouth and makes you feel sick."

Mr Shorten, whose electorate takes in Sunshine North, said Mr
Napthine needed to "stop sitting on his hands".

"Families in Sunshine North need action immediately," he said. "He
has left it to the Sunday Herald Sun to uncover and sample
asbestos contamination. That's just not good enough."

Slater & Gordon asbestos lawyer Margaret Kent said the firm had
received a steady stream of inquiries from concerned residents
about the legacy of the factory.

"The scale of this problem is widespread, but it should come as no
surprise to anyone," she said. "I question why it's taken so long
for something to be done when as a community we have known for
many years about the dangers of asbestos."

Experts will address a community meeting for concerned residents
at the Sunshine RSL Club.

The Sunday Herald Sun's revelations prompted the EPA to order a
clean-up of Vic Track land littered with fibrous asbestos behind
the old factory site.

The EPA had not monitored the land around the factory site, even
though asbestos was dumped on 2ha at the back of the property for
most of its decades operating until 1983. Children played in
asbestos.

EPA chief executive Nial Finegan said he relied on change of land-
use applications and the public to act on contamination. However,
at least four local landowners claim they had tried to raise
concerns with the EPA and Brimbank Council, but they had been
ignored.

Brimbank Council refused to respond to questions about whether it
planned to conduct broader ceiling cavity tests.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns for North Balgowlah
---------------------------------------------------
Cayla Dengate, writing for Manly Daily, reported that asbestos
fears have resurfaced in Warringah, New South Wales, after a 1980s
report recently uncovered by WorkCover NSW showed a home in North
Balgowlah tested positive to deadly loose-fill asbestos.

The report showed loose-fill asbestos was found and removed in the
home in Warringah in the 1980s, plus homes in the Hills, Bankstown
and Lithgow.

Loose-fill asbestos is raw asbestos that has been crushed into a
fine state and was used for ceiling insulation in the 60s and 70s.
If disturbed, fibres can become airborne and be inhaled,
potentially causing fatal diseases including lung cancer and
mesothelioma.  A precedent exists for homes that had loose-fill
asbestos fibres removed in the 80s to still be contaminated.

WorkCover's Customer Service Centre confirmed it has received nine
phone inquiries from residents in the Warringah LGA regarding
loose-fill asbestos, which will be referred to Warringah Council
for eligibility assessment for free testing.

A Warringah Council spokeswoman said the council had not been
contacted by WorkCover NSW.

Northern Beaches Asbestos Removal managing director Terry Hillman
said there was community concern about asbestos.

"There's a massive amount of fear -- it's over the top, really,"
he said.

"There are two different types of asbestos, bonded and fireball.
Bonded is what I work with -- it's usually fibres bonded in cement
and it can be sealed and removed.

"Fireball is different. It's much more rare, and it goes
everywhere. I don't touch it . . .  It would be extremely rare in
the northern beaches.

"I've seen one property in Avalon that burned down that had it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Causes Diversion on Anstruther Road
----------------------------------------------------------
Murray Mail reported that a broken asbestos fence may cause delays
to motorists on Anstruther Road, in Australia, with Council
workers diverting traffic around the scene.

Investigations are now underway and it is expected the section of
road between the Silver Sands shops and Wyeree Road roundabout
will be closed for three to four hours.

A recovery team will remove the product from the site and water
down the area.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Claims Being Killed Off by Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
John Jeffay, writing for Daily Record and Sunday Mail, reported
that a family in England claims they are being killed off by
deadly asbestos after two cousins died following exposure to the
powder.

Two other members of the family are also fighting the effects of
working with the insulation and fire-proofing material.

Charlie Glass, 68, and cousin Tommy Glass, 80, are both fighting
for their lives. Charlie has already lost his brother Tommy at the
age of 63 and his cousin George, also Glass, aged 80, to
mesothelioma.

Joiner Tommy died in 2011. He had helped build the operating
theatre at Glasgow's Victoria Infirmary with asbestos panels.

George was a plasterer who worked for Glasgow City Council and
Glasgow Corporation. Retired electrician Charlie and cousin Tommy
struggle to breathe because of pleural plaques linked to asbestos
exposure.

Charlie, from Bridgeton, Glasgow, said: "As a family, we're being
killed off one by one. We spent years working hard to bring up
families while placing trust in our employers and the Government
to protect us.

"The first warnings about asbestos were given out in 1906 in a
parliamentary report but employers didn't protect workers or tell
them about the dangers.

"Tragically, our story is one which affects hundreds across the
country."

Law firm Irwin Mitchell have settled thousands of cases for
asbestos victims.

The firm's major injuries specialist Laura McCallum said: "We are
acting for the family but no amount of money can make up for the
illness and death."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dutch Ministry to Tackle Fibro Removal Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
DutchNews.nl reported that asbestos removal companies which lose
their license as a result of fraud or breaches of safety
regulations are free to apply for a new license and start another
limited company without any sanctions whatsoever, Trouw writes.

Emails in the possession of newspaper Trouw show that the social
affairs ministry has acknowledged the existence of this loophole
for the first time and ordered an investigation into the case by
inspectors and legal advisors.

According to Trouw, the authorities are powerless to prevent the
practice.

Certificate

Demolition companies need a special certificate to remove asbestos
but will only be given one if they comply with all the safety and
quality regulations.

If companies are found to be in breach of the norms the
certificate is taken away. However, Trouw says, it is all too easy
to apply for a new certificate by using a limited company in the
name of a relative, or continue business by using the certificate
of another company.

The ministry wants to combat the fraud by checking up on new
limited companies and tightening the rules. It will also publish a
list of inspection results.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Judge Remands Fibro Case v. Boeing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a New Jersey federal judge has held that remand was proper in
an asbestos case when he concluded that The Boeing Company failed
to prove that military specifications prohibited it from providing
warnings on its aircraft.

Judge Peter G. Sheridan's Oct. 9 order found in favor of
plaintiffs Mary Sue Papp and Steven Papp, remanding the case back
to the Superior Court of New Jersey for Middlesex County.

The plaintiffs claim Mary Sue Papp developed mesothelioma as a
result of take-home asbestos exposure while laundering her husband
Robert Keck's work clothing.  Keck worked at various employments,
including the military, where he was involved with C-47 aircraft
designed and manufactured by defendant Boeing.  Keck was also
allegedly exposed to asbestos dust while performing automotive
repair work at Papp's home, therefore exposing her to the dust.

Boeing removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey according to the federal officer removal
statute.  It claims the manufacturing process of the C-47 aircraft
was performed under the control of the federal government, which
required asbestos-containing government furnished aircraft
equipment, or GFAE.

The plaintiffs, however, argue that Boeing's removal was untimely
and cannot satisfy the statutory requirements for federal officer
removal.

Judge Sheridan explains that there are four "prongs" to proving
removal was proper according to the federal officer removal
statute. Though, he only discussed one qualifying requirement
because it was all that was needed to determine if remand is
proper.  Judge Sheridan addressed the level of control exercised
by the federal officer or agency over the challenged conduct in
question.

Boeing claims the military was "exclusively responsible for the
procurement of the asbestos=containing components on which Keck
ultimately worked, which were then provided to Boeing for
subsequent installation on the aircraft pursuant to its military
contracts."

Boeing further argues that the military exercised "exclusive
dominion and control" over whether warning labels were included in
the GFAE manuals and could not place additional labels on any
products beyond what was required by the military specifications.

"Moreover, Boeing was also required to comply with numerous self-
authored military specifications, as well as the Air-Force-Navy
Aeronautical Standards in performing under the contract, which
controlled the design and construction of aircraft components, as
well as the provision and contents of any warnings," the order
states.

Judge Sheridan disagreed with Boeing's allegations regarding the
warning labels, noting that the claims alleged against Boeing in
the plaintiffs' amended complaint are based solely on the
defendant's failure to warn.

"Therefore, the analysis of whether the requirements for federal
officer removal have been met must be undertaken solely within the
context of plaintiffs' failure to warn claims against Boeing," he
concluded.

Judge Sheridan held the Boeing has successfully demonstrated that
the military "tightly controlled" the design and manufacture of
the C-47 and its components.

However, "not one of these documents indicates that a federal
officer or agency directly prohibited Boeing from issuing, or
otherwise providing, warnings as to the risks associated with
exposure to asbestos?" the order states.

Therefore, the court concluded that Boeing failed to carry its
burden of establishing that it was acting under the control of a
federal officer when it failed to warn of the dangers associated
with asbestos-containing components used in the C-47 aircraft.

As a result, Judge Sheridan remanded the case back to the Superior
Court of New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at 2 Hillsboro Structures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luke Hammill, writing for Oregon Live, reported that the city of
Hillsboro, in Oregon, found asbestos at two publicly owned
structures near the Shute Park library over the summer, after
Hillsboro Fire & Rescue underwent training burns at the buildings.

Now, the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration is
"looking into" the Hillsboro fire department, said OSHA
spokeswoman Melanie Mesaros. The case was opened Oct. 1, Mesaros
said, though she would confirm no other details. The agency
doesn't typically provide the details of an investigation at this
stage, she said.

Eric Keim, the president of the Hillsboro firefighters' union,
said he understood that OSHA's inquiry was "tied to that
[asbestos] incident over the summer." Keim said the union notified
OSHA about the case.

"We take the health and safety of our members seriously," Keim
said.

The incidents marked the second time the city found asbestos at
the site, composed of five properties at the corner of Southeast
Ninth Avenue and Maple Street. The city plans to build additional
parking there for the library and Shute Park Aquatic and
Recreation Center.

Hillsboro officials initially hired an asbestos inspector, who
found traces of asbestos, and performed remediation. Hillsboro
Fire & Rescue then conducted training burns at two of the
structures in June. The department set small, controlled fires
inside a house and gathered data to help firefighters develop more
effective strategies for battling residential blazes.

City spokesman Patrick Preston said in August that a fire
department employee involved in the training, who had experience
with asbestos in a previous career, advised the city that another
inspection should be performed.

The city did pay for an additional investigation and found more
asbestos at two of the structures. The substance was found beneath
the floor in a kitchen and bathroom, in undercoating around the
bottom of a sink, and around the bottom of walls in a laundry
room. All of the asbestos-containing material was "intact and in
good condition" and not disturbed by the fire, according to an
assessment by a consultant.

"We do not believe that the [fire department's training]
activities at the site constituted a risk to public health,"
Preston said in August, adding that there had been no reports of
anyone who has become ill.

Hillsboro officials then hired a specialist to remediate the site,
and the asbestos was removed.

"We don't think there is a very serious health concern, but you
never know," Keim said.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber that was once routinely added to
building products to strengthen them and to provide heat
insulation and fire resistance, according to the Consumer Product
Safety Commission website. If disturbed, asbestos may release
fibers that can be inhaled and remain in the lungs a long time,
according to the agency, increasing the likelihood of cancer and
other diseases.

Dave Stover, a project manager for PBS Engineering +
Environmental, the consultant that oversaw the second remediation,
said in August that the original inspection likely "was not as
thorough as it needed to be." PBS was not involved with the
original inspection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Traces Found in Exhibit at Irish Museum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronan McGreevy, writing for The Irish Times, reported that traces
of asbestos have been found in an exhibit that had been on display
at the Irish Museum of Modern Art (Imma).

Traces were found in a work by the Brazilian artist Helio Oiticica
entitled Nas Quebradas which was on display in Imma during the
summer and closed on October 5th.

The discovery was made by an environmental hygienist who examined
Nas Quebradas for asbestos before it was scheduled to be
destroyed. The traces were found in intact sheets of concrete
within the work.

The east wing of the gallery was closed off to staff and the work
was removed by a specialist environmental services company.

Exposure

A full exposure assessment and interim report are due.  The Office
of Public Works (OPW) has been informed.

Nas Quebradas is a copy of an original work which was created in
1979. It is made out of corrugated iron, wood and brick and is
meant to resemble a home in a shanty town or favela in Rio de
Janeiro.

The original work contained traces of asbestos, but the one that
was in Imma was a copy.

An Imma spokeswoman said the art work had come from exhibitions at
the CCB Berardo in Portugal and MMK in Frankfurt, Germany, and
both had assured Imma that it was safe.

"We got the right assurances at the time to put it on display. It
was only when we were going to destroy it that that the technician
decided to check it further," she said.

Postponed

The work was due to travel to a gallery in the United States, but
as the US portion of the tour was postponed, Imma was asked to
destroy the exhibition copy.

The spokeswoman said initial assessments suggested there was a
"very low risk" of danger to the public as asbestos only poses a
risk to health when fibres are released usually during
destruction.

Asbestos can cause lung disease or cancer and is banned as a
building material. However, the Health and Safety Authority (HSA)
website states that "as long as asbestos is in good condition and
there is no disturbance or damage to the asbestos containing
materials (ACMs), it will not pose a risk to health as fibres will
not be released."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Begins at Clovis 'Hunted House'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonhia Lee, writing for The Fresno Bee, reported that motorists
driving by Wolfe Manor in Clovis, California, will see some
activity at the "haunted house" -- not the paranormal kind, but
enough to stir up some curious spirits.

Asbestos removal in the nearly century-old house, which was once
used as a Halloween attraction and featured on a number of ghost
investigation television shows, began paving the way for
demolition of the building in November.

The city of Clovis has forged ahead with plans to clean up the
1.25-acre property, southwest of Sierra Vista Mall on Clovis
Avenue, after trying to work with owner Todd Wolfe on giving the
house and the land a new life.

"We've been working with Mr. Wolfe for at least the last five
years to do something with this site," said John Holt, Clovis
assistant city manager. "Ultimately, he was either unwilling or
unable to either have investors put money in the project."

Wolfe, however, is still trying to sell the house and even offers
to donate it for free to the right buyer who is willing to move
it. If all his efforts fail, he hopes to at least be given some
time to salvage anything of historical value from the house so he
can sell it later.

"We thought we had more time," Wolfe said.

Clovis designated the house "unsafe to occupy" about two years
ago. Then the city's Board of Appeals declared the vacant house a
nuisance last year and a danger after finding 22 building code
violations.

The city described the structure as "unsightly and in a state of
disrepair." The roughly 5,000-square-foot house had excessive
"cracking, peeling, chalking, dry rot and warping."

But when Wolfe looks at the house he bought in 1997, he sees an
architectural gem that can be revived.

The house has lead-glass windows from 1922 and the mantel has
cherubs, or angels, holding it up, he said.

Wolfe used the house, which is the reputed home of ghosts and
paranormal activity, for a "Scream If You Can" Halloween
attraction. It drew about 20,000 visitors each year before ending
in 2003 after neighbors complained about traffic, noise and trash.

The house has also been featured on several television shows
including "The Dead Files," "Mystery Quest" and "Ghost Hunters."

Wolfe was working with developer Jay Virk to build a hotel on the
property. But Virk told The Bee in May that he may not know until
next year what he can do with the property.

In the meantime, Wolfe continued his campaign to sell the house.

"It's a historical home," Wolfe said. "It's one of the oldest
homes in Clovis and why just tear it down when there's maybe going
to be other viable options."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Laid Against Former Grace Hospital Owner
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the property developer which once owned the
former Grace hospital site, in Windsor, Ontario, has been fined
$100,000 for failing to properly clean up the asbestos on site.

On Oct. 17, Grace Village Windsor Inc. pleaded guilty to four
offences laid by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change.

Kate Jordan, who speaks for the ministry, said a consultant hired
by the company in 2011 reported that there was no asbestos on
site.

"Although they did submit some documentation, when we reviewed it
we found it wasn't satisfactory and we did our own research into
the site and that research indicated that, yes, there was asbestos
containing material historically known to be in the building,"
said Jordan.

The company also has to pay a $25,000 victim fine. It has 180 days
to pay all the fines.

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.


                              *********

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 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *