CAR_Public/141114.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 14, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 227


                             Headlines

4 DIMENSION NUTRITION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Amino Acids
4SEASONS GLOBAL: Recalls Folding Lounge Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
ABBVIE INC: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme of Drug Products
ADVANCED BUILDING: "Songer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AIRBNB INC: Taps Munger Tolles & Olson to Defend Class Action

ALICE'S TEA: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Hearing for $960MM Stock Suit Accord Set
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Mediation Set in ERISA Litigation II
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Securities Litigation Stayed
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Trial in SICO Treasury Action Begins

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Disputes Ruling in Caremark-Related Suit
AMS HEALTH: Saba Shark Cartilage Complex Recalled Over Salmonella
APO PRODUCTS: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Snack Foods Due to Allergens
B.H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Arkansas Customer Suit Remanded to Fla. Court

BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Tenn. Court
BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Affirms Approval of ERISA Suit Deal
BAYER INC: Feb. 9 Yaz/Yasmin Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
BEAVEX INC: Faces "Berrios" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BERNARD WARNER: Kyle Lee Must File Amended Complaint by Dec. 5

CALMENA ENERGY: "MacDonald" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CANADA DRY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over FLSA & ERISA Violations
CATHOLIC HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CENTERSTATE BANKS: Lawsuit Over First Southern Merger Withdrawn
CHOICE HOTELS: Suit Alleging Anti-Competitive Practice Junked

COLONIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over Cape Bancorp Merger
COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL: Reconsideration Bid in Iyapo Case Denied
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal Against VIPI in Valdez Case Dismissed
CROWN SEWING: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CS BEST: Recalls 6,560 Lbs. of Pork Products Due to Misbranding

D & D RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DBME INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH: Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity
DUN & BRADSTREET: Antitrust Suit by O&R Construction in Discovery
DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Die-Mension CreditBuilder Suit Stayed

DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Vinotemp CreditBuilder Suit Stayed
DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Flow Sciences Inc. Litigation Stayed
DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Altaflo CreditBuilder Lawsuit Stayed
FANNIE MAE: Wins Dismissal of "Romo" Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Stip. for Protective Order in Consumer Case Gets OK

FORD MOTOR: Called a "Recidivist" Sexual Harassment Offender
G JUBILEE ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GAWKER MEDIA: Court Approves Social-Media Campaign in Labor Suit
GENTRY HOMES: S.C. Affirms Cir. Ct. Ruling in "Nishimura" Suit
GOODMAN COMPANY: Recalls Air Conditioning and Heating Units

HOME DEPOT: Faces "Harnish" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls One Lot of 1% Lidocaine HCI for Injection
INTEL CORP: Pentium 4 Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 23
JFC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls All Lot Codes of 3-Pack Hapi Pudding
KAM WAH: Recalls U.loveit Instant Drink Powders

KAYDEN INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Appellate Ct. Reverses TCPA Class Cert. Ruling
KULANA FOODS: Recalls 4,465 Lbs. of Frozen Cooked Pork Products
LABORERS' INT'L UNION: Faces "Terry" Suit Over CBA
LAUNDRY HOUSE: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act

LEONA'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LET'S OF OCALA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
LITTON LOAN: Southwest's Deadline to Respond to FAC Due Nov. 17
LONG-KOGEN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Coronel" Suit Says
M & W FOOD: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MCDONALD'S CORP: Recalls Hello Kitty-Themed Whistles
MCDONALD'S USA: Court Tosses Class Cert. Motion in "Bell" Case
MEAD JOHNSON: High Court Nixes Writ of Certiorari in Enfamil Suit
MGB STEAKHOUSE: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MICHAEL MEISNER: Motion for Reconsideration in Davis Case Denied

MIKE PACHECO'S LAWN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Cycling Shoe Covers
NATIONAL GENERAL: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
NEW HOPE MILLS: Recalls Gluten Free Chia Pancake and Waffle Mix
NORDSTROM INC: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Class Action

NUTEK DISPOSABLES: Sued Over Bacteria in Baby Wipe Products
OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Substantive Motion to Certify Class Due Nov 17
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Marked-Up Fees, Action Claims
ORACLE CORP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
OSOLEO WILDCRAFTERS: Recalls Unpasteurized Cider Due to E. Coli

PAN ASIA: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Group of Pharmacists From Lipitor MDL
PFIZER INC: November 18 Hearing Scheduled for Zoloft MDL
PINON MANAGEMENT: Obtains Summary Judgment Ruling in "Perez" Suit
PROMONTORY FINANCIAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Publix Asian Mix Due to Undeclared Peanuts
PURITY FIRST: Sued Over Secret Anabolic Steroids in Supplements
QUALITY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bonn Biscuits and Cookies
RCI LLC: Bid to Certify Transacting Class in Barton Case Denied
RMS PROPERTIES: Faces "Duran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAVORY SALADS: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SELVIN LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SIRIUS XM: Can't Arbitrate Toyota Owner's Claims, 9th Cir. Rules
SNC INVESTMENTS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SOUTHWESTERN FURNITURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

STATE COMPENSATION: Faces "Acero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUPER YOO: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Hooper" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: May Face Criminal Charges Over Air Bag Defect

TAKATA CORP: Plaintiffs Move to Consolidate Airbag Defect Suits
TIME MOVING & STORAGE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TRACY'S TREASURES: Trial Court Ruling Upheld in Part
TRAVELLOOGA LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITE HERE: Illegally Deducts Seasonal Workers' Salary, Suit Says

UNITED NATURAL: Recalls Asian 7 Rice Cracker Mix Due to Peanuts
UNITED STATES: Has 90 Days to Adopt Changes in Immigration Policy
UNIVERSAL IMPEX: Recalls Cool Runnings Jamaican Style Curry Powder
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Misclassified Class as Unpaid Interns, Suit Says
VELDOS LLC: Faces "Politi" Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation

VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Has Invade Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
VIEJA AZTECA: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL: Class Cert. in "Vallare" Case Affirmed
VIRGINIA: W.D. Va. Court Dismisses "Souter" Complaint
W&E COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

WBM INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Dorfman" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Partially Grants Bid to Junk PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Review "Boyer" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Junks Bystander Claims in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Court Remands Claims in 4 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants 32 Bids to Dismiss MARDOC Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Suit Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Lipe" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Ct. Upholds MSA Insurance Suit Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Allows PI Plaintiff to Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Int'l. Indemnified From 1,076 Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., Units Continue to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $462-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $23MM Insurance Receivable

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 PI Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane & Co. Had $637-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,105 PI Cases as of Sept. 30
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
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevada Officials to Try to Ease Fibro Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UPenn Seeks to Track Ambler's Fibro Legacy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hope for Fibro Victims After Landmark Victory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Knew About Mr. Fluffy Risk 25 Years Ago

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Report Raises Concerns About Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poor Diagnosis Deprives SA Miners of Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Demolition Deal Sparks Probe in NOLA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Approves Up to $5MM for Abatement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suit Filed by Former Shipyard Worker

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner Indicted in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Late-Filed Garlock Fibro Claims To be Junked
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Virgin Islands Suits Cut From MDL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Contaminated Hospital to be Demolished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School to Remain Closed After Fibro Finding

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Encourage Workers to Call for Payment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise in Cancer Cases Reported Near Fibro Factory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Welder Died From Fibro-related Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melbourne House Riddled with Fibro Razed in Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Halts Work on Peters Store

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agency Says Low Fibro Threat From Hospital
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Grossly Under-Recognized in Spain
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Cabinet to Rule on Contribution to Clean-Up
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers' Death Sparks Complaint in School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Gov't Appeal from Fibro Ruling Unlikely

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Opens Up Evidence in Garlock Ch. 11 Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags Containing Toxic Dust Left at Wash. Street
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shiozaki Apologizes to Plaintiffs in Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wants Garlock Suit Moved to NY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Resident Calls for Probe in Fibro Debris

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Says UK Co. Must Face Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessy Must Arbitrate Attys' Fees From Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gravedigger Accused of Burying Fibro in Cemetery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: County Crews Clean Up Illegally Dumped Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Outraged Over Illegally Dumped Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Approved for Care Facility
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SDRC, Owners Say Fibro Handling 'Best Practice'
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Attys Give Up Jurisdictional Fight
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate Can't Sue Reinsurers in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Argue on Role of Daubert Factors

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Express Concern Over Mt. Manresa Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Unearth Fibro in NSW Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues Council Over Husband's Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants Judgment for 6 Fibro Defendants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Firm Seeks to Transfer RICO Case to NY

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found on NZ Arts Precint Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Slots Trigger for Madison County Docket
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Linked to Lung Cancer that Killed Teacher
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Toxic Dust Dumped in Nelson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Hospitals Riddled With Toxic Dust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Warned of Fibro at Halifax School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Grants Summary Judgment for Ingersoll-Rand
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mom Dies Due to Fibro From Husband's Clothes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Didn't Exclude All Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MV Miner Has More Fibro Than Thought

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Governor Grants $1MM for Ambler Fibro Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Judge Claims Courthouse Gave Him Fibro Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evergreen Demolition Paused For Fibro Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Canadian Public Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Aussie Hospital Sparks Staff Concern

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Riddled Hospital To be Demolished
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inspector Gets Probation in Fibro-Removal Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Government Hunts for 'Mr. Fluffy' Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lehighton Middle School Plans Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kentucky Tower Tested for Toxic Dust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Washington University Coop
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bonney Lake Company Fined for Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Approves Fibro Removal at Former Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Builder Dodges Fibro Bullet
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niles Park Ridge District Plans Fibro Removal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices Take on 'Any Exposure' Theory Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Laid After Sloppy Fibro Removal Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Independent PwC Probe on Fibro Issue in NSW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bega Valley Residents Ask for Fibro Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois PI Firm Adds New Fibro Lawyer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Appeals for Help
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Fined $379K for Seattle Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Governer Chastises EPA for Delayed Libby Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Denied Over Contradicting Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peak Body Says NSW Fibro Danger Mismanaged

ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Resolves Suit v. 2 Fibro Attys, Radiologist
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gaythorne Fibro Meeting Hears of Health Concerns


                            *********


4 DIMENSION NUTRITION: Sued Over Illegal Use of Amino Acids
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mason Dabish and Frank Muir, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 4 Dimension Nutrition, Inc., and
General Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-08781 (N.D. Ill.,
November 4, 2014), alleges that the Defendants add cheaper free
form amino acids and non-protein ingredients to increase the
nitrogen content of the Product's protein powder.

4 Dimension Nutrition, Inc. designed, manufactured, warranted,
advertised and sold dietary supplements throughout the United
States.

General Nutrition Corporation is one of the largest distributors
in the United States of whey protein products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Gregory W. Jones
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: www.siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com
              gjones@siprut.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine, Suite 101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      1515 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 564-1300
      E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com


4SEASONS GLOBAL: Recalls Folding Lounge Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
4Seasons Global, Inc. of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,200 4Seasons folding lounge chair.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The chair can tip or recline too quickly, posing a fall hazard.

4Seasons has received five reports of falls occurring in Ross
Stores, three of which resulted in minor injuries.

This recall involves three colors of 4Seasons folding lounge
chairs.  The chairs are made of steel tube frames and textilene
fabric with attached head cushion in orange, turquoise or brown.
The chairs are approximately 3 feet 6 inches tall.  The affected
product SKU numbers are 400085136029 (bronze fabric and frame),
400085136036 (turquoise fabric and a white frame), and
400085136043 (orange fabric and a white frame).  SKU numbers can
be found on the retailer's hang tag attached to one of the arms of
the chair.  There's a separate manufacturer's tag sewn on the back
of the chair that says "Weight limit - 250 lbs." and "Made in
China."

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Ross Stores nationwide between April and June 2013,
for about $40.

Consumers should stop using the chairs and should destroy them by
carefully cutting out a 5 inch by 5 inch piece of the fabric on
the seat of the chair, rendering the chairs unusable, and removing
the manufacturer's tag from the back of the chair.  4Seasons will
provide a full refund to all consumers who present the cut-out
fabric and tag.


ABBVIE INC: Sued Over Deceptive Marketing Scheme of Drug Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Mutual of Ohio v. Abbvie Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
08857 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), arises out of the Defendants'
fraudulent marketing schemes of testosterone replacement therapy
drugs as a treatment for Andropause, late-onset male hypogonadism,
and age-related hypogonadism.

Abbvie Inc. is engaged in the business of designing, licensing,
manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and introducing
into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through
third parties or related entities, the prescription testosterone
replacement therapy drugs sold under the name AndroGel throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq.
      John R. Davis, Esq.
      Luke A. Hasskamp, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      Facsimile: (504) 524-5763

         - and -

      W. Scott Simmer, Esq.
      Thomas J. Poulin, Esq.
      THE SIMMER LAW GROUP
      The Watergate, Suite 10-A
      Washington, DC 20037
      Telephone: (202) 333-4562
      Facsimile: (202) 337-1039

         - and -

      Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700

         - and -

      Trent B. Miracle, Esq.
      Brendan A. Smith, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
      One Court Street
      Alton, IL 62002
      Telephone: (618) 259-2222
      Facsimile: (618) 259-2251


ADVANCED BUILDING: "Songer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darreck Songer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Advanced Building Services, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-
03154 (S.D. Tex., November 5, 2014), seeks to recover the unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Advanced Building Services, LLC is in the oilfield service
business and provides oil companies with custom manufacturing and
turnkey servicing of oilfield accommodations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


AIRBNB INC: Taps Munger Tolles & Olson to Defend Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Airbnb Inc.
has brought in Munger, Tolles & Olson to fight a would-be class
action alleging that the company's business model violates San
Francisco's housing ordinances.

Los Angeles partner John Spiegel -- John.Spiegel@mto.com --
entered an appearance on behalf of Airbnb in the suit filed this
September in San Francisco Superior Court.

Gamache v. Airbnb, 14-541477, accuses the company of participating
in, facilitating and enabling the illegal short-term rental of
rooms in the city.  It focuses on the Sheldon Hotel in downtown
San Francisco, a residential hotel where one of the named
plaintiffs has been living for 16 years.  Airbnb guests are
transforming the residential building into a tourist hotel,
raising rents and jeopardizing security, according to plaintiffs
lawyers Mark Hooshmand and Tyson Redenbarger of Hooshmand Law
Group in San Francisco.  The lawyers are asking for damages for
violations of city housing ordinances and state unfair competition
law.

"We're looking at every person who has violated the law in terms
of these short-term rentals," Mr. Hooshmand said, "because they've
contributed to this situation which has affected so many people's
rights."

Airbnb declined to comment on the litigation, but a spokesman
defended the company's business model in an email.

"Anyone who follows our company knows how deeply we care about
making San Francisco a more livable, more affordable city," Nick
Papas wrote.

Plaintiffs allege Airbnb has driven up rates at the Sheldon Hotel
from around $500 a month to $1,800.  That gap gives the owner an
incentive to get rid of long-term residents and replace them with
higher-paying tourists, said Mr. Hooshmand, a former Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati associate who formed his own firm in
2002.  Airbnb has become a popular target of late, with critics
including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein blaming the company for
contributing to San Francisco's housing crisis.  On Nov. 3, rival
rental site HomeAway Inc. sued San Francisco over a recently
enacted ordinance it says favors the hometown company.

In April, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed two
lawsuits against property owners accused of abusing home-sharing
sites, including Airbnb.

Taking on Airbnb directly is much different than suing individual
property owners who use the website, said Duane Morris partner
Richard Seabolt -- RLSeabolt@duanemorris.com

"When you go against a company whose business model is being
challenged by the lawsuit, it's reasonable to expect that that's
going to be hard fought," he said.

The new San Francisco ordinance regulating short-term rentals of
private residences could also pose a challenge to plaintiffs
lawyers.

"If legislative and executive branches of government enact either
regulations or ordinances or statutes that give some degree of
blessing to the way things are done, that usually does have an
impact on litigation," Mr. Seabolt said.

Mr. Hooshmand contends the ordinance, signed into law by Mayor Ed
Lee in October, can't be applied retroactively. Additionally,
residential hotels fall under different regulations than private
homes or apartments.  Ultimately Mr. Hooshmand said he wants to do
away with the ordinance altogether.

"If the lawsuit doesn't do it," he said, "we're going to find a
way to file a petition for a writ of mandate or otherwise
challenge the law to prevent it from taking effect."


ALICE'S TEA: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
David Rosas, Juan Perez, Ignacio Torres, Jose R. Maldonado, Isabel
Toribio Solis, David Rivera-Solis, Ramiro Salgado-Landa, Alfredo
Arellano-Rodriguez, Margarito Salas-Flores, and Miguel A. Rivera,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Alice's
Tea Cup, LLC, ATC II LLC, and ATC III, LLC, Zhariff Melgoza, and
Haley Fox, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08788 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation.

The Defendants own and operate Alice's Tea Cup restaurant located
at 102 West 73rd Street, New York, New York 10023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone (212)209-3933
      Facsimile (212)209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Hearing for $960MM Stock Suit Accord Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing for a $960 million settlement of the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against American
International Group, Inc. is set for March 20, 2015, according to
the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and
certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside
auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the Southern District of New York), alleging claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act). On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all
eight of the purported securities class actions as In re American
International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation).

On May 19, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements. The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock. The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act. On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On April 26, 2013, the Court granted a motion for judgment on the
pleadings brought by the defendants. The Court's order dismissed
all claims against the outside auditors in their entirety, and it
also reduced the scope of the Securities Act claims against AIG
and defendants other than the outside auditors.

On July 15, 2014, lead plaintiffs and all defendants except AIG's
outside auditors accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the
Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation for a cash payment by AIG
of $960 million (the AIG Settlement).  On August 1, 2014, lead
plaintiff and AIG's outside auditors accepted a mediator's
proposal to resolve the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation
for a cash payment by the outside auditors (the Auditor Settlement
and, collectively with the AIG Settlement, the Settlement). On
October 7, 2014, the Court granted lead plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Approval of Notice to the
Class and scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for March
20, 2015. The Settlement remains subject to notice to the class
and final approval by the Court. On October 22, 2014, AIG made a
cash payment of $960 million, which is being held in escrow
pending final approval of the AIG Settlement and which will be
returned if the AIG Settlement is not approved.  The AIG
Settlement amount has been accrued.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Mediation Set in ERISA Litigation II
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II have scheduled a mediation in November 2014,
according to American International Group, Inc.'s Nov. 3, 2014,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II. On September 4, 2012, lead plaintiffs' counsel
filed a consolidated second amended complaint. The action purports
to be brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all
participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG
and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. In
the consolidated second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On November 20, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated second amended complaint. On June 26, 2014, the Court
issued an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss in light of
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, No. 12-751 (U.S. June 25, 2014), which rejected the
presumption of prudence in favor of ERISA fiduciaries that many
courts had previously applied.  The Court's order required the
parties to meet and confer concerning the impact of the Fifth
Third Bancorp case and the possibility of settlement. On September
10, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter with the Court on
behalf of all parties, informing the Court that the parties had
agreed to schedule a mediation to explore the possibility of
settlement. The parties have scheduled a mediation in November
2014. On September 12, 2014, Judge Swain issued an order extending
defendants' time to respond to the second amended complaint to
December 12, 2014.

As of November 3, 2014, discovery is ongoing, and the Court has
not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or
scope of any class. As a result, the company is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Securities Litigation Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Securities Class Action against American
International Group, Inc. has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation,
according to the company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading
Group Inc. and their respective subsidiaries (AIGFP), certain
directors and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief
Executive Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities
Act. If the Court grants the application, a class plaintiff will
be permitted to file a statement of claim against defendants. The
proposed statement of claim would assert a class period of March
16, 2006 through September 16, 2008 and would allege that during
this period defendants made false and misleading statements and
omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral
presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on
the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a
pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012 SCC
17.

On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the
standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out- of-
province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must
have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual,"
presence to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases,
defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be
doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business
activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter
of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.
Plaintiff has not yet moved to lift the stay.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate. As of November 3, 2014, the Court has not
determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Trial in SICO Treasury Action Begins
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the SICO Treasury Action began in the Court of Federal
Claims on September 29, 2014, according to American International
Group, Inc.'s Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO)
filed a complaint against the United States in the United States
Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing
claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes and
derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The
complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant
to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the
FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an
approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges
that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory,
unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered
by the government to other comparable firms at the time and
violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of
the U.S. Constitution.

In rulings dated July 2, 2012 and September 17, 2012, the Court of
Federal Claims largely denied the United States' motion to dismiss
in the SICO Treasury Action.

In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party
(as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG.
On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre- litigation demand on the
company's Board demanding that the company pursues the derivative
claims or allow SICO to pursue the claims on its behalf. On
January 9, 2013, its Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in
its entirety and on January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a
letter to counsel for SICO describing the process by which our
Board considered and refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons
for its Board's determination.

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action and denied the United States'
motion to dismiss SICO's direct claims.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non- derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008; and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG
Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those
shares at AIG's June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. SICO
has provided notice of class certification to potential members of
the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25,
2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to
participate in either class. On November 15, 2013, SICO informed
the Court that 286,892 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two
class periods had opted into the classes.

While no longer a party to the SICO Treasury Action, AIG
understands that SICO is seeking significant damages. Trial in the
SICO Treasury Action began in the Court of Federal Claims on
September 29, 2014.

The United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its
answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its
representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery
in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or
recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United
States alleges that the company received as a result of the
government's assistance. On November 8, 2013, the Court denied a
motion by SICO to strike the United States' affirmative defenses
of indemnification and contingent offset or recoupment.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Disputes Ruling in Caremark-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. petitioned for rehearing of a
trial court's decision that granted class certification to a suit
that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative
litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc., according to AIG's Nov. 3,
2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the
second- filed action intervened in the first- filed action, and the
second- filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12,
2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the
other defendants have petitioned for rehearing of that decision.
Absent further review of the class certification order, the matter
will return to the trial court for general discovery (which has
not yet commenced) and adjudication of the merits.


AMS HEALTH: Saba Shark Cartilage Complex Recalled Over Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMS Health Sciences, LLC is notifying the public that it is
recalling 2014 bottles of Saba Shark Cartilage Complex due to
possible contamination of Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy
persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.  To date, no illness or complaints
have been reported to AMS Health Sciences, LLC.

A single lot of Saba Shark Cartilage Complex is the subject of
this public announcement and recall as a result of a sample from
one bottle that tested positive for Salmonella.  This product is
packaged in black screw-top bottles with the brand name "saba" in
red letters, the product name "shark cartilage complex" in white
letters, and a net quantity statement of "500 mg 60 capsules" in
small white letters.  Product from the affected lot can be
identified by the Lot Number 416349 and an expiration date of
08/16, both of which are printed in black letters inside a white
rectangle that is adjacent to the products "Suggested Use"
instructions.

Product from this lot was sold to consumers through the internet
site sabaforlife.com during the period of Feb. through Aug. 2014.
AMS is initiating this recall out of caution for consumer health,
even though numerous samples from the same Lot No. have tested
negative for Salmonella.

Any consumer who purchased product with the lot number and
expiration date above should dispose of it immediately and may
request a refund by calling (866) 758-7222, Monday through Friday,
9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Central).  If you have consumed the product and
are experiencing any unusual or severe symptoms such as those
described above, go to an emergency room immediately or contact
your physician for immediate advice.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.


APO PRODUCTS: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Snack Foods Due to Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           APO Products Ltd., Diwa Products Ltd.,
                          UNO Foods Ltd., Wilby Commercial Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9402

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 24, 2014, has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Jack 'N Jill brand snack foods from the
marketplace because they contain milk and wheat which are not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk or wheat or
sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled products
described below.

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

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

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

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

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


B.H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           B.H. Kosher Select Food Dist.
Distribution:             Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 30, 2014, has been updated
to include additional lot codes.  This additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

B.H. Kosher Select Food Dist. is recalling Ortega brand Taco
Seasoning Mix from the marketplace because it contains peanut and
almond which are not declared on the label.  People with an
allergy to peanut or almond should not consume the recalled
product described.

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 35.4 g. Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix with Best By
April 16, 2016 S0 & Best By July 28, 2016 S5 code


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Arkansas Customer Suit Remanded to Fla. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case filed by an Arkansas customer of the BankcorpSouth Bank
over overdraft fees has been remanded to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida, according to BancorpSouth,
Inc.'s Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On May 18, 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer
protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in
an unspecified amount and equitable relief. The case was
transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida wherein an
order was entered certifying a class in this case.  The
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation
court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further
proceedings.  There are significant uncertainties involved in any
purported class action litigation.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Face Securities Suit in Tenn. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
procedures, systems and process related to certain of its
compliance programs.  The plaintiff seeks class certification, an
unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys'
fees and such other equitable relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.  No class has been certified and, at this stage of the
lawsuit, management cannot determine the probability of an
unfavorable outcome to the Company.


BANK OF AMERICA: 2nd Cir. Affirms Approval of ERISA Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, on November 5,
2014, affirmed the judgment of the district court approving the
settlement in IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE,
AND EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT (ERISA) LITIGATION.

In the appeal, the Second Circuit considered several challenges to
the district court's approval of a settlement agreement between
representative plaintiffs and the defendant Bank of America in a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act of
1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77a et seq., and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78a et seq.  The underlying
litigation traces its origins to Bank of America's negotiations
with Merrill Lynch in the Fall of 2008, which culminated in the
two financial institutions merging in January 2009.  Holders of
Bank of America stock and derivative options brought claims
against Bank of America when it was discovered that senior
officers at the Bank had withheld information leading up to the
shareholder vote on the merger -- information that included
Merrill Lynch's losses of more than $20 billion in the final
quarter of 2008 and agreements regarding bonuses orchestrated by
the two financial institutions in anticipation of the merger. The
district court consolidated these claims and named lead plaintiffs
to pursue the actions on behalf of the larger class in conformance
with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,  15 U.S.C.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). Before trial commenced, the parties
negotiated a settlement agreement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e), the district court approved the notice of
the settlement to class members. After that notice issued, certain
non-named class members objected to the settlement.

The Second Circuit has considered all of objectors-appellants
remaining arguments and concluded that they are without merit.
There was neither a deprivation of a constitutional right,
including due process, nor did the district court exceed the
bounds of its discretion in approving the notice of the statement
of average amount of damages per share, said the Second Circuit.
Likewise, the costs borne by representative plaintiffs litigating
this matter were reasonable, in accord with 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(a)(4), it added.  A copy of the ruling is available at
http://is.gd/HntveC from Leagle.com.

STEVE A. MILLER, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Objector-Appellant
Michael Washenik.

N. ALBERT BACHARACH, JR., N. Albert Bacharach, Jr., PA,
Gainesville, Florida, for Objectors-Appellants Leonard Masiowski,
MaryAnn Masiowski, Michael J. Rinis, Babette Rinis; and Michael J.
Rinis, IRA.

ROBERT N. KAPLAN, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, New York,
(Steven B. Singer, John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossman LLP, New York, New York; David Kessler, Sharan
Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Radnor, Pennsylvania;
Frederic S. Fox, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, New York, New York,
on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellees Public Pension Funds and
Grant Mitchell.

DANIEL J. KRAMER, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP,
New York, New York, (Brad S. Karp, Audra J. Soloway, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, New York; Mitchell A.
Lowenthal, Lewis J. Limin, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,
New York, New York; Julia Guttman, Baker Botts LLP, Washington
D.C.; Colby A. Smith, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Washington D.C.;
Adam S. Hakki, Shearman & Sterling LLP, New York, New York, on the
brief) for Defendants-Appellees.

The case is, MICHAEL WASHENIK, ORLOFF FAMILY TRUST DTD 10/3/91,
ORLOFF FAMILY TRUST DTD 12/31/01, ST. STEPHEN, INC., LEONARD
MASIOWSKI, MARYANN MASIOWSKI, MICHAEL J. RINIS, BABETTE RINIS,
MICHAEL J. RINIS, IRA, Objectors-Appellants, CHARLES N. DORNFEST,
Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC PENSION FUNDS, THE PUBLIC PENSION FUND GROUP,
STEVEN J. SKLAR, AS (IRA ACCOUNT BENEFICIARY), ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RHONDA WILSON, ALMA
ALVAREZ, MICHAEL R. BAHNMAIER, MARK ADAMS, ELIZABETH EAGEN, VERNON
C. DAILEY, RICHARD ADAME, ARLENE KAHN, PETRA CHATMAN, STICHTING
PENSIOENFONDS ABP, GRANT MITCHELL, NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION OF
COLORADO, STEVE R. GRABER, INDIVIDUALLY, AS ASSIGNEE OF CLAIMS OF
THE SRG 2008 TRUST, SCHWAB SP500 INDEX FUND, SCHWAB 1000 INDEX
FUND, SCHWAB INSTITUTIONAL SELECT SP500 FUND, SCHWAB DIVIDEND
EQUITY FUND, SCHWAB CORE EQUITY FUND, SCHWAB PREMIER EQUITY FUND,
SCHWAB FUNDAMENTAL US LARGE COMPANY INDEX FUND, SCHWAB TOTAL STOCK
MARKET INDEX FUND, SCHWAB SP500 INDEX PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB
MARKETTRACK GROWTH PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB MARKETTRACK BALANCED
PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB INVESTMENTS, SCHWAB CAPITAL TRUST, DR. SALOMON
MELGEN, FLOR MELGEN, SFM HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
INTERNATIONAL FUND MANAGEMENT S.A., DEKA INTERNATIONAL S.A.
LUXEMBURG, DEKA INVESTMENT GMBH, DI, AARON KATZ, JOEL KATZ, SYLVIA
WEISSMANN, PARKER FAMILY INVESTMENTS L.L.C., JEFFREY R. PARKER,
THE 1997 JEFFREY R. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, DREW E. PARKER, THE 1994
DREW E. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, KEITH D. PARKER, JULIE M. SORIN, THE
1991 JEFFREY R. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, THE 1994 JULIE P. MANTELL
FAMILY TRUST, MICHAEL A. PARKER, MARK D. WENDER, ELLIOT WENDER,
PENINA WENDER, STANLEY L. WENDER, RAZELLE M. WENDER, JILL W.
GOLDSTEIN, JERRY E. FINGER, AMBASSADOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
SELECT INVESTORS EXCHANGE FUND, L.P., RICHARD FINGER, JEF FAMILY
TRUST, 1976 REAL ESTATE TRUST, WALTER FINGER, THE JERRY E. FINGER
FAMILY TRUST D/T/D 12/28/1989, THE JERRY E. FINGER FAMILY TRUST,
LEO R. JALENAK, PEGGY E. JALENAK, KERS & CO., ROBERT GEGNAS, 198
LOCHA DRIVE, JUPITER, FL 334587752, STEVEN L. SHAPIRO, HARVEY M.
MITNICK, NATHAN A. FRIEDMAN, BONNIE FRIEDMAN, KENNETH A. CIULLO,
JOANNA CIULLO, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, AS ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL
RETIREMENT SYSTEMS AND AS SOLE TRUSTEE OF THE NEW YORK STATE
COMMON RETIREMENT FUND, SCHWAB FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., GARY A. CARLIN,
NELSON CHAI, KENNETH D. LEWIS, JOHN A. THAIN, FRANK P. BRAMBLE,
SR., WILLIAM BARNET, III, JOHN T. COLLINS, GARY L. COUNTRYMAN,
TOMMY R. FRANKS, CHARLES K. GIFFORD, MONICA C. LOZANO, WALTER E.
MASSEY, THOMAS J. MAY, PATRICIA E. MITCHELL, THOMAS M. RYAN,
MEREDITH R. SPANGLER, ROBERT L. TILLMAN, JACKIE M. WARD, NEIL A.
COTTY, JOE L. PRICE, BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES L.L.C., MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, BANK OF AMERICA, J.
STEELE ALPHIN, AMY WOODS BRINKLEY, BARBARA J. DESOER, LIAM E.
MCGEE, TIMOTHY J. MAYOPOULOS, BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, BRUCE L.
HAMMONDS, RICHARD K. STRUTHERS, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS, BANK OF AMERICA
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS, KEITH T. BANKS,
TERESA BRENNER, CAROL T. CHRIST, ARMANDO M. CODINA, VIRGIS W.
COLBERT, GREGORY CURL, JOHN D. FINNEGAN, GREGORY FLEMING, FOX-PITT
KELTON COCHRAN CARONIA WALLER (USA) L.L.C., J.C. FLOWERS & CO.,
L.L.C., JUDITH MAYHEW JONAS, AULANA L. PETERS, JOSEPH W. PRUEHER,
ANN N. REESE, MICHAEL ROSS, CHARLES O. ROSSOTTI, PETER STINGI,
THOMAS K. MONTAG, KENNETH D. DAVIS, MARTIN I. FINEBERG, KENNETH A.
LEWIS, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., 4 WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER, NEW
YORK, NY 10080, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 100 N. TRYON STREET,
CHARLOTTE, NC 28255, JOSEPH L. PRICE, JEREMY FINEBERG, O. TEMPLE
SLOAN, JR., Defendants-Appellees, PETER KRAUS, Defendant, DOCKET
NOS. 13-1573(L), 13-1677(CON), 13-1798(CON), 13-1830(CON), 13-
1853(CON).


BAYER INC: Feb. 9 Yaz/Yasmin Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yasmin(R)/YAZ(R) CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION

To all residents of Ontario:

(a) who were prescribed and used combination oral contraceptives
Yasmin(R)(3.0 mg drospirenone and 0.030 mg ethinyl estradiol
tablets) and/or YAZ(R)(3.0 mg drospirenone and 0.020 mg ethinyl
estradiol tablets) which are manufactured, marketed, and/or sold
or otherwise placed into the stream of commerce in Canada by
Bayer Inc., between December 10, 2004, in respect of Yasmin(R), or
January 6, 2009 in respect of YAZ(R), and November 30, 2011; and
(b) who by virtue of a personal relationship to any one or more of
the persons described above, have a derivative claim for damages,
pursuant to s. 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c F.3. [the "Class"]

Class Action Lawsuit:

Yasmin(R)and YAZ(R)are oral contraceptives sold in Canada by Bayer
Inc. ["defendant"].  A class action lawsuit has been initiated in
Ontario alleging that Bayer Inc. marketed and sold Yasmin(R)
and YAZ(R)without properly warning of alleged increased risks of
suffering blood clots (including pulmonary embolism, deep vein
thrombosis), heart problems, stroke and gallbladder disease
and/or removal, compared to other available oral contraceptives.
The class action seeks, among other things, damages for personal
injuries suffered relating to the use of Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R)
as well as consequential damages suffered by family members of
Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R)users.

Certification:

On April 15, 2013, the action was certified as a class action by
order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  The certification
order appointed Ann Schwoob, Cody Schwoob and Christine Lovelace
to act as representative plaintiffs for the Class.

The Court may determine a number of issues common to the Class,
including:

   * whether or not Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R)create an increased risk
of pulmonary embolism,
   * deep vein thrombosis, stroke, heart problems, and/or
gallbladder disease, compared to

   * other available oral contraceptives;

   * whether the defendant properly warned of the alleged risks;
and

   * if there is liability, if this is an appropriate case in
which the defendant should disgorge any part of the proceeds
received from the selling of Yasmin(R)and/or YAZ(R).

This notice does not mean that the Court has taken a position as
to the likelihood of recovery on the part of any plaintiffs, or as
to the merits of the claims or defenses asserted by either side.

Participation in Class Action

Members of the Class who want to participate in the class action
are automatically included and need not do anything at this time.
The Class Proceedings Act provides that no Class member, other
than the representative plaintiffs, will incur liability for legal
costs if the action is dismissed.

Each Class member who does not opt out of the class action will be
bound by the terms of any judgment or settlement and will not be
allowed to pursue an independent action.  If the class action is
successful, Class members may be entitled to share in the amount
of any award or settlement recovered.

Opting Out

Class Members who do not want to participate in the class action
must opt out.  If you want to opt out of the class action, you
must send a written, signed election, including your name,
address, telephone number to: McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP, c/o
Yasmin/YAZ Class Action, 140 Fullarton Street, Suite 1800, London
ON N6A 5P2 by Monday, February 9, 2015.

No person may opt out a minor (person under 18 years of age) or a
mentally incapable member of the Class without permission of the
Court after notice to The Children's Lawyer and/or the Public
Guardian and Trustee, as appropriate.

Family members of any Class members who opt out will be deemed to
have opted out.  If a Class member is deceased, his or her estate
trustee has the right to opt out.

A Class Member who opts out will not be entitled to participate in
the class action.  His or her right to pursue a claim in a
separate proceeding will not be affected.

Important

This notice does not constitute medical advice.  Women who have
been prescribed Yasmin(R) and/or YAZ(R)should consult with their
physicians if they have any questions with respect to their
course of treatment and/or medical condition.

Questions? The court offices will be unable to answer any
questions about the matters in this Notice.  If you have any
questions regarding the certification order or about the class
action in general, information is available on Class Counsel's
website: www.mckenzielake.com and by contacting Class Counsel
directly, as follows:

McKenzie Lake
Lawyers LLP
Toll Free Tel: 1.844.672.5666
Email: jones@mckenzielake.com

This Notice was approved by order of the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.


BEAVEX INC: Faces "Berrios" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Berrios and Maria Guerrero, on behalf of those similarly
situated individuals v. Beavex Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-04905 (N.D.
Cal., November 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Beavex Inc. provides outsourced mission critical, same-day
transportation and logistics services throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert David Baker, Esq.
      ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
      80 South White Road
      San Jose, CA 95127
      Telephone: (408) 251-3400
      Facsimile: (408) 251-3401
      E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


BERNARD WARNER: Kyle Lee Must File Amended Complaint by Dec. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura issued an order on November
5, 2014, directing the plaintiff in KYLE LEE PAYMENT, Plaintiff,
v. BERNARD WARNER, SCOTT FRAKES, DAN PACHOLKE, KARIE RAINER, JOHN
CAMPBELL, PATRICK GLEBE, MIKE OBENLAND, STEVE SINCLAIR, MARGARET
GILBERT, SCOTT RUSSELL, TIM THRASHER, Defendants, CASE NO. C14-
5748 RBL-JRC, (W.D. Wash.) to file a second amended complaint.

The Plaintiff filed this action and titled his original complaint
as a class action. The Court screened the action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1915A and ordered plaintiff to file an amended
complaint that only addressed defendants who are in this Court's
jurisdiction. The Court specifically ordered plaintiff to limit
his action to himself. Plaintiff purported to act on behalf of
other persons.  Plaintiff's amended complaint is before the Court
for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.  Plaintiff has
failed to comply with the Court's order and continuously
references inmates as a group or makes allegations that are
generalized toward inmates with mental illness who are in the IMU.
Further, plaintiff provides no details rega1rding any specific
defendant and instead presents his claims in the abstract where
"defendants have been notified" or "defendants know or are
deliberately indifferent to" a fact or condition.

Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura held that the "Plaintiff must
allege facts showing how each defendant caused or personally
participated in causing the harm to plaintiff, as alleged in the
complaint. A Section 1983 suit cannot be based on vicarious
liability alone, but must allege that defendant's own conduct
violated plaintiff's civil rights.

"Plaintiff is ordered to file a second amended complaint curing
the defects in his amended complaint. The allegations in the
second amended complaint must pertain to plaintiff and not to
other inmates in general. Plaintiff must state facts showing how
each defendant participated in causing the harms he complains of.
To aid plaintiff is structuring his complaint he is directed to
use the prisoner form for civil rights complaints. The Court
expects plaintiff to comply with the order to limit this action to
himself and to his claims. Failure to comply with this order or
failure to cure the defects in the amended complaint will result
in a Report and Recommendation that this action be dismissed.

"Plaintiff's second amended complaint must be filed on or before
December 5, 2014. The Clerk's office is directed to send plaintiff
a civil rights form and noted the December 5, 2014, date on the
Court's calendar."

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/cAI67Ufrom
Leagle.com.

Kyle Lee Payment, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CALMENA ENERGY: "MacDonald" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trent MacDonald, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Calmena Energy Services (USA) Corp., Case
No. 4:14-cv-03151 (S.D. Tex., November 4, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Calmena Energy Services (USA) Corp. is a Canadian based oilfield
service company with significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


CANADA DRY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over FLSA & ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Rodriguez, Marcelino Marte, and Jesus Rodriguez, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individual employees and
former employees of Canada Dry Bottling Company of New York, L.P.
v. Canada Dry Bottling Company, L.P., ABC Corporation (1-20), XYZ
Corporation (1-20), John Does (1-10), and Jane Does (1-10), Case
No. 2:14-cv-06897 (D.N.J., November 4, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act.

The Defendants operate a bottler and distributor of soft drinks
and other beverages in New York and New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Tandy, Esq.
      50 Tice Boulevard, Suite 363
      Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
      Telephone: (201) 474-7103
      E-mail: rtandy@tandylaw.com


CATHOLIC HEALTH: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Indelicato, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-
situated v. Catholic Health System Of Long Island, Inc., d/b/a
Catholic Health Services Of Long Island, Case No. 2:14-cv-06522
(E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Catholic Health System Of Long Island, Inc. is the largest faith-
based health care system on Long Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


CENTERSTATE BANKS: Lawsuit Over First Southern Merger Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida against CenterState Banks,
Inc. over its planned merger was withdrawn, according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

As disclosed in Form 10-Q filed on May 6, 2014, a class action
complaint was filed on April 24, 2014 in the Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida
against First Southern Bancorp, Inc. ("First Southern"), its
directors and CenterState challenging the merger of First Southern
with CenterState. The complaint was subsequently withdrawn.


CHOICE HOTELS: Suit Alleging Anti-Competitive Practice Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
The federal court in Dallas, Texas granted the motion of online
travel companies and hotel companies to dismiss a lawsuit alleging
they engaged in anti-competitive practices, according to Choice
Hotels International, Inc.'s Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

In May 2013, the Company was added to an ongoing multi-district
class action pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. The
lawsuit alleged that several online travel companies and hotel
companies have engaged in anti-competitive practices. The
complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages and equitable
relief. The Company, along with other defendants, disputed the
allegations and vigorously defended itself against these claims.
On February 18, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice.  The plaintiffs have 30
days to petition the court to refile their claim with additional
facts.


COLONIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over Cape Bancorp Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint was filed against Colonial Financial Services, Inc. in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland in connection with
a proposed merger with Cape Bancorp, Inc., according to the
company's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

Subsequent to September 30, 2014, on October 14, 2014, a complaint
was filed against the Company and the members of its Board of
Directors in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland,
seeking class action status and asserting that the Company and the
members of its Board had violated their duties to the Company's
shareholders in connection with the proposed merger with Cape
Bancorp, Inc.  The litigation is in its very early stages, and the
Company's time to answer has not yet run.


COLUMBIA CORRECTIONAL: Reconsideration Bid in Iyapo Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RUFUS WEST, a/k/a MANSA LUTALO IYAPO,
Plaintiff, v. GREGORY GRAMS, et al, Defendants, NO. 11-CV-687-SLC,
(W.D. Wis.), plaintiff Mansa Lutalo Iyapo, a Muslim inmate,
brought claims that prison officials were: (1) violating his
rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause and the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by
prohibiting Jumu'ah, Talim and Eid al-Fitr services to be held at
the Columbia Correctional Institution without a volunteer leader
from outside the prison; and (2) violating his rights under the
First Amendment by retaliating against him for debating when it
was proper to serve meals to Muslim inmates during Ramadan.

In a November 8, 2013 order, Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of
plaintiff's claims, concluding that plaintiff failed to show that
defendants had violated his rights and adding that in any event,
defendants were entitled to summary judgment on each claim based
on the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Plaintiff responded by filing a document Magistrate Judge Crocker
construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which was largely denied in a June
16, 2014 order, but granted as to the argument that qualified
immunity was not a proper basis for granting summary judgment on
plaintiff's RLUIPA claims, which were for injunctive relief only.
Magistrate Judge Crocker vacated that portion of the judgment, but
ultimately dismissed plaintiff's RLUIPA claims as moot because he
had been transferred to a new prison.

Now, before the court is a motion by plaintiff to alter or amend
the amended judgment regarding his RLUIPA claims, along with a
supplement to that motion. In those filings, plaintiff presents
two arguments: (1) because he sought injunctive relief for all
Muslim inmates at CCI, his claims were not mooted by his transfer;
and (2) plaintiff's transfer out of CCI was retaliatory

"With regard to his argument that he brought claims on behalf of
all Muslim inmates at CCI, a pro se party cannot bring claims on
behalf of other parties," wrote Magistrate Judge Crocker in his
November 4, 2014 opinion and order, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/Dz9TcGfrom Leagle.com.

In his reply brief, the plaintiff argues that he intended for this
case to be brought as a class action, but he never explicitly
sought class action status nor inquired about it after the court
characterized his claims as individual claims and litigated those
claims accordingly. It is far too late to convert the case into a
class action, the Court said.

As for plaintiff's argument that his transfer was retaliatory,
such allegations at most state a claim that belongs in a separate
lawsuit, Magistrate Judge Crocker pointed out. "As I stated in the
June 16 order, the relevant question for determining whether his
claims are moot is whether "'he can demonstrate that he is likely
to be retransferred.'"  Because nothing in plaintiff's submissions
makes this showing, I will deny his motion for reconsideration."

Rufus West, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Gregory Grams, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Mike Meisner, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Mardel Petras, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Rick Raemisch, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Gary Hamblin, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Leo Campbell, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Mark Teslik, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

William Grosshans, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Melissa Schueler, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

David Lipinski, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Glenn Bennett, Defendant, represented by Jody J. Schmelzer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal Against VIPI in Valdez Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Valdez filed a class action against Video Internet Phone
Installs, Inc. (VIPI); Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.; Quality
Communications, Inc.; and Sierra Communications Services, Inc.,
alleging failure to pay wages in accordance with Nevada law and
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. After the action was removed
to federal court and the claims against Quality Communications
were resolved, the state law claims against the remaining three
defendants were remanded to Nevada state court.  The claims
against VIPI were severed in April 2013 and thereafter resolved in
an October 18, 2013, order. The notice of entry of that order was
served on November 18, 2013. Valdez did not file a notice of
appeal from the October 2013 order. Instead, Valdez appealed from
the district court's March 4, 2014, order approving the class
action settlement between Valdez and Sierra Communications, which
finally resolved the remaining claims and dismissed the complaint
with prejudice. While Valdez does not challenge the March 2014
order in his appeal, he challenges three interlocutory orders, two
of which involve VIPI and one of which involves Cox
Communications.

VIPI filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to it, arguing that
Valdez could not challenge the interlocutory orders regarding VIPI
because Valdez had failed to timely appeal from the October 2013
order, which finally resolved all the severed claims against VIPI.
Valdez filed an opposition to that motion and VIPI filed a reply.
In his opposition, Valdez contends that he could not appeal from
the October 2013 order because it was never certified as final
under NRCP 54(b).

The Supreme Court of Nevada ruled in an opinion dated November 6,
2014, that because Valdez failed to timely appeal from the October
2013 order resolving the severed claims against VIPI, Valdez
cannot now challenge the orders regarding VIPI in an appeal from
the March 2014 order. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that it
lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal against VIPI, and it
grants VIPI's motion to dismiss this appeal as to it. As it
appears, however, that the March 2014 order constitutes the final
judgment regarding the unsevered claims in this case, the appeal
may proceed as to Cox Communications. Briefing as to the remainder
of the appeal from the final judgment will be reinstated in a
separate order.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/zZkk1Ofrom
Leagle.com.

The case is JOE VALDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS LAS VEGAS,
INC.; AND VIDEO INTERNET PHONE INSTALLS, INC., Respondents, NO.
65383. 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 89

Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation and Leon M. Greenberg --
leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- and Dana Sniegocki --
dana@overtimelaw.com -- Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Duane Morris LLP and Ryan A. Loosvelt -- RLoosvelt@duanemorris.com
-- Las Vegas; Chamberlain Hrdicka and Annette A. Idalski --
annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com -- Atlanta, Georgia, for
Respondent Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., and Rick D. Roskelley --
rroskelley@littler.com -- Montgomery Y. Paek -- mpaek@littler.com
-- and Kathryn B. Blakey -- kblakey@littler.com -- Las Vegas, for
Respondent Video Internet Phone Installs, Inc.


CROWN SEWING: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mariana Villa, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Crown Sewing, Inc. and David Sawah,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08785 (N.D. Ill., November 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Crown Sewing, Inc. provides business services, sewing supplies and
accessories, miscellaneous sewing supplies and sewing fasteners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CS BEST: Recalls 6,560 Lbs. of Pork Products Due to Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
CS Best Food Inc., a Panorama City, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 6,560 pounds of pork products due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product contains wheat and soy, known allergens which are not
declared on the product label.

The blood sausage link products were produced between Aug. 28 and
Oct. 17, 2014.  The products subject to recall include:

   -- 1-lb. vacuum-packed packages containing 2 sausage link
      pieces of "A Pork Snout, Beef Blood, Rice & Noodle Link".

   -- 5-lb. vacuum-packed packages containing multiple sausage
      link pieces of "A Pork Snout, Beef Blood, Rice & Noodle
      Link".

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
40119" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These products
produced were shipped to retail locations in California and
Washington.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine label review.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:

           http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Woosung America at 510-265-0808.


D & D RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hermel A. Cordova, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. D & D Restaurant, Inc., Doyler & Dunneys, Inc., d/b/a
D&D's Restaurant & Pub, Thomas J. Schunke, and Roy O'donovan, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08789 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant in New City,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)209-3933
      Facsimile: (212)209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpdaw.com


DBME INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Bentivoglio, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. D.B.M.E., Inc., a/k/a Dutchess Adjustment
Bureau, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-cv-08790 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

D.B.M.E. Inc. is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and
facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose
of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

         - and -

      Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646)459-7971
      Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
      E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com


DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH: Defendants Entitled to Qualified Immunity
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a first amendment retaliation case captioned BARBARA MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTINE MONEY, et al., Defendants-
Appellants, NO. 14-3173, Plaintiff Barbara Moore, a former
Department of Youth Services (DYS) employee, alleges that
Defendants, individuals who were also employed by DYS, retaliated
against her because of testimony she provided in a civil rights
case in which DYS was a defendant. Defendants moved for summary
judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity, and the
district court denied the motion. Defendants filed an
interlocutory appeal.

Here, as the district conceded, at the time of Ms. Moore's
testimony and the alleged retaliatory conduct, neither this Court
nor the Supreme Court had addressed whether in-court testimony is
protected public employee speech. At the time of Ms. Moore's
testimony, there was no "controlling authority" or a "consensus of
cases of persuasive authority" that could have put Defendants on
notice that Ms. Moore's testimony was protected by the First
Amendment.

For these reasons, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit reverse and hold that the Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity.

A copy of the Court's November 4, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/BMwLYCfrom Leagle.com.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Antitrust Suit by O&R Construction in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) is
ongoing, according to Dun's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against D&B and an unaffiliated
entity. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants
violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to
sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly
misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The
plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and
equitable relief.

On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations. The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the
motion and granted it. Specifically, the Court dismissed a
contract claim with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining
claims without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for
negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under
Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies
in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability
against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for
practices relating to CreditBuilder. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's
motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint
venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company.
The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence,
defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the
Company answered the SAC. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice
Regarding Scope of Class Definition, noting its intention to
revise its class definition to exclude small businesses from the
states of Ohio and California from its motion for class
certification. The parties exchanged initial disclosures and
completed the initial case management process in March 2013.
Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to
investigate the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Die-Mension CreditBuilder Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' obligation to respond to the complaint Die-Mension
Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation et al.,
No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392
(N.D. Oh.)) has been stayed until the court decides whether to
consolidate this case with the related cases that have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, according to Dun's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity, purporting to sue on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder
product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may
certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As
against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation, and negligence. The
complaint alleged deceptive trade practices, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On March 4, 2014,
in response to a direction from the Ohio court, Die-Mension
withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as
the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small
businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product.

On March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
amended complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a
Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of
Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order
granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22,
2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of
Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on October 8, 2014 by the
Washington court, the Defendants' obligation to respond to the
complaint has been stayed until the court decides whether to
consolidate this case with the related cases that have been
transferred to the Western District of Washington. The Company is
in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Vinotemp CreditBuilder Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' obligation to respond to the complaint Vinotemp
International Corporation and CPrint, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)) has been stayed
until the court decides whether to consolidate this case with the
related cases that have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, according to Dun's
Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014.

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint, Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC, an
unaffiliated entity. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf
of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of
California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive
marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring
products, in violation of Section 17200 and Section 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also
alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.
As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company
entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in
violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation
claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court
granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8,
2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of
Washington.

Pursuant to an order entered on October 8, 2014 by the Washington
court, the Defendants' obligation to respond to the complaint has
been stayed until the court decides whether to consolidate this
case with the related cases that have been transferred to the
Western District of Washington. The Company is in the initial
stages of investigating the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Flow Sciences Inc. Litigation Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' obligation to respond to the complaint Flow
Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al.,
No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128
(E.D.N.C.)) has been stayed until the court decides whether to
consolidate this case with the related cases that have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, according to Dun's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2014.

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation ("DBCC"), an unaffiliated
entity. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers
of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina.
The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in
deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North
Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-
1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint
alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also
alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.
On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on October 8, 2014 by the Washington
court, the Defendants' obligation to respond to the complaint has
been stayed until the court decides whether to consolidate this
case with the related cases that have been transferred to the
Western District of Washington. The Company is in the initial
stages of investigating the allegations.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Reply to Altaflo CreditBuilder Lawsuit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' obligation to respond to the complaint Altaflo,
LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-
cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.))
has been stayed until the court decides whether to consolidate
this case with the related cases that have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
according to Dun's Nov. 3, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2014.

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation ("DBCC"), an unaffiliated entity. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Section 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court
granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington on August 20,
2014. Pursuant to an order entered on October 8, 2014 by the
Washington court, the Defendants' obligation to respond to the
complaint has been stayed until the court decides whether to
consolidate this case with the related cases that have been
transferred to the Western District of Washington. The Company is
in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.


FANNIE MAE: Wins Dismissal of "Romo" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
JORGE MARTINEZ ROMO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, NO. 14 C 1891, (N.D. Ill.) is putative class action
which stems from a dispute over who is responsible for paying
assessments owed on a condominium when that condominium is
purchased from a mortgagee. In 2013, Plaintiff Jorge Martinez Romo
agreed to purchase a condominium from the Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Romo now sues Fannie Mae,
alleging that Fannie Mae agreed to pay all outstanding condominium
assessments prior to closing and that when it required Romo to pay
six months' of assessments, Fannie Mae breached the purchase
agreement (Count I) and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
815 Ill. (Count II).  Fannie Mae moves to dismiss, arguing that
the Illinois Condominium Property Act, 765 Ill. Comp. Stat 605/1
et seq., requires purchasers like Romo to pay six months' of
assessments that had accumulated under the previous owner. Fannie
Mae also contends that Romo waived his claims and that Count II
fails to state a valid ICFA claim.

According to District Judge Sara L. Ellis, "Each of Fannie Mae's
arguments fails at this stage: the Court cannot determine on the
record before it that the Condominium Property Act or the
contract's waiver provisions apply here, and Romo has plausibly
alleged a non-redundant ICFA claim. Therefore, the motion to
dismiss is denied."

A copy of the Court's November 4, 2014 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/Po0RFmfrom Leagle.com.

Jorge Martinez Romo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Charles
Murphy -- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., John
Auchter -- jauchter@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.,
John Robert McInerney -- jrm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin,
P.C., Patrick Doyle Austermuehle -- paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com
-- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter Scott Lubin --
psl@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. & Vincent Louis
DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Bruce Roger Braun -- bbraun@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP &
Mark William Lenihan -- mlenihan@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP.


FORD MOTOR: Stip. for Protective Order in Consumer Case Gets OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on November 4, 2014, a
stipulation for protective order for litigation involving highly
sensitive information, trade secrets, computer software, source
code and related intellectual property in In re: MYFORD TOUCH
CONSUMER LITIGATION, CASE NO. CV 13-3072-EMC, (N.D. Cal.).

On May 16, 2014, the Court entered a stipulated protective order
covering the disclosure or production of certain confidential
documents and information. As noted in that Order, disclosure and
discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production
of certain confidential Source Code, Raw Data, Native Data and
related intellectual property for which special protection from
public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than
prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. This Protective
Order is intended to facilitate the Parties' production of certain
Source Code and related intellectual property, including but not
limited to associated computer software, raw data, binary files,
and/or native data (Source Code and Data), as well as documents
describing or interpreting Source Code and Data, and engineering
and technical specifications applicable to Source Code and Data.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated to, and petitioned the court
to enter the Stipulated Protective Order for Highly Confidential
Information, Trade Secrets, Computer Software, Source Code and
Related Intellectual Property. The parties acknowledged that this
Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or
responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from
public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information
or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the
applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledged that
the Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file
confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets
forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that
will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to
file material under seal.

Finally, the parties acknowledged that the schedule for expert
reports that was adopted by the Court in its Case Management and
Pretrial Order for Jury Trial will need to be modified. Because of
the scope of the source code review that the parties agreed to
after the submission of their proposed schedule to the Court, Ford
will require additional time for the preparation of its expert
rebuttal report. The parties will meet and confer regarding what
modification to the schedule is appropriate and submit a request
to the Court as soon as practicable.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/Se9oD6 from Leagle.com.

RANDALL W. EDWARDS -- redwards@omm.com -- KEVIN R. RUBINO --
krubino@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, San Francisco, CA,
Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY.

STEVE W. BERMAN -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- (pro hac vice) HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, WA, Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead
Counsel.

JANET L. CONIGLIARO -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT
PLLC, Detroit, Michigan.

Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Shana E. Scarlett --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Berkeley, California,
Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- (pro hac vice), GRANT &
EISENHOFER P.A., Chicago, Illinois.

Roland Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Mark Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- BARON & BUDD, P.C., Encino, California.

Joseph G. Sauder -- JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- (pro hac vice),
Matthew D. Schelkopf -- mds@chimicles.com -- (pro hac vice)
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP, Haverford, Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs'
Interim Co-Lead Counsel.


FORD MOTOR: Called a "Recidivist" Sexual Harassment Offender
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action in Illinois calls Ford Motor Co. a
"recidivist" sexual harassment offender, reports Courthouse News
Service.


G JUBILEE ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eusevio Calvarin, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. G Jubilee Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Dunkin
Donuts, Jomani, Inc., d/b/a Dunkin Donuts, and Noorul A. Khowaja,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08786 (N.D. Ill., November 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Dunkin Donuts stores within the
State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GAWKER MEDIA: Court Approves Social-Media Campaign in Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh from their recent class-action certification, former unpaid
Gawker interns may have a unprecedented tool for reaching out to
potential plaintiffs: a court-approved social-media campaign,
reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

Though class-action notices typically arrive via U.S. mail,
lawyers for ex-Gawker interns Aulistar Mark and Andrew Hudson
worried that their clients' peers might be hard to reach the old-
fashioned way.

Judge William Pauley made a similar finding last year while
handling a similar class action involving unpaid Fox interns.

"These are millennials.  They don't read paper," Pauley had said.

Andrea Paparella, an attorney for the Gawker interns with Liddle &
Robinson, quoted that remark in a letter brief proposing the
creation of Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn accounts dedicated to
the "Gawker Intern Lawsuit" or "Gawker Class Action."

Gawker's lawyers noted that the interns cited no legal precedent
for the idea, and it is unclear whether any prior case exists.

U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan approved the solution on
November 3.

While Gawker insisted there is "no evidence" that their former
interns use Twitter, Nathan cited a Pew Research Center poll that
found 89 percent of their age group use social media.

"The vast majority likely have at least one such account, if not
more," the six-page order states.

Like "migrant workers," millennials have "highly mobile" habits,
the order states.

Sending out email notifications and setting up "two stand-alone
website" would help address this dilemma, the court also found.

Gawker succeeded in limiting other attempts at public shaming.

Posting notices on Gawker's dozen-plus "websites and blogs would
be overbroad and not likely to materially improve the chances of
notice," the judge wrote.

Gawker's blogging roster currently includes Deadspin, a sports
site; Gizmodo, dedicated to gadgets; Jezebel, for women's
interests; and other pages devoted to cars, science, video games
and other pursuits.

Forcing all of these sites to disclose the class-action lawsuit
"has the potential to appear punitive," Nathan wrote.

Gawker proved that using its logo on the notices would be "simply
gratuitous," and it is also unnecessary to post a hard copy in its
offices, the ruling states.

Once the court approves the social-media campaign, potential
plaintiffs will have 60 days to opt into the lawsuit.

Gawker's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for
comment, and a lawyer for the interns declined to comment.


GENTRY HOMES: S.C. Affirms Cir. Ct. Ruling in "Nishimura" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS NISHIMURA, COLETTE NISHIMURA, Individually and on Behalf of
a Class of All Persons Similarly Situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. GENTRY HOMES, LTD., a Hawai'i Domestic Profit
Corporation, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant, and SIMPSON
MANUFACTURING CO., INC., a Delaware Corporation; SIMPSON STRONG-
TIE COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation, Defendants, NO. SCWC-
13-0000137 is an appeal that raises an issue of first impression
in Hawaii: what standard applies in reviewing the enforceability
of an arbitrator-selection provision?

According to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i, it adopts the
"fundamental fairness" standard set forth by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in McMullen v. Meijer,
Inc., 355 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2004), and it holds that the
arbitrator-selection provision at issue in this appeal was
fundamentally unfair, because it gave the defendant's agent "sole
discretion" to select an arbitration service to resolve a dispute
between the plaintiffs and defendant. In the instant case, says
the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court of the First Circuit properly
severed and struck the arbitrator-selection provision and ordered
the parties to meet and confer to select an arbitration service.
The circuit court also properly reserved for itself the authority
to appoint an arbitration service if the parties could not come to
an agreement.

The Hawai'i Supreme Court, therefore, vacates the ICA's judgment
on appeal, which vacated the circuit court's "Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Defendant Gentry Homes, Ltd.'s Motion to
Compel Arbitration Filed August 29, 2012," and its "Order Denying
Gentry Homes' Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Gentry Homes, Ltd.'s Motion to Compel
Arbitration [Filed August 29, 2012], Filed on November 13, 2012."

The circuit court's orders are affirmed, rules the Hawai'i Supreme
Court in its October 31, 2014 opinion, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/o0DTHqfrom Leagle.com.

Melvin Y. Agena, for petitioners.

Ryan H. Engle, for respondent.


GOODMAN COMPANY: Recalls Air Conditioning and Heating Units
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Posting date:             October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41997

Affected products: Amana, Century, Comfort-Aire Packaged Terminal
Air Conditioner/Heat Pump ("PTAC") units

The recall involves Amana, Century, Comfort-Aire Packaged Terminal
Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.  The units are rated 230/208
volt, 3.5 kW and are most often installed in walls of hotels,
motels, apartment buildings and commercial spaces to provide room
climate control; however, the products may have also been sold
directly to consumers.  The name brand can be found on the unit's
control panel cover.

The recalled units are beige with serial numbers ranging from
0701009633 through 0804272329.  The serial number is located on
the control board plate found by lifting the unit's front cover.

These products are included in the recall:

   Model   Serial number                      Model number
   Amana   0701009633 through 0804272329    First two digits of
                                            the model number being
                                            "PT" or "DR."

   Centry,   0701009633 through 0804272329  10 digit model
   Comfort Aire                             numbers beginning
                                            with "EKT," with a
                                            hyphen after the sixth
                                            digit and the eighth
                                            and ninth digits being
                                            35"

The PT units have 11-digit model numbers, with the eighth and
ninth digits of the PT models being "35."  The DR units have 12-
digit model numbers, with the ninth and tenth digits also being
"35."

The power cords on the air conditioning and heating units can
overheat, posing burn and fire hazards.

Goodman has received five reports of power cords smoking or
catching fire in the United States and none in Canada.  No
injuries were reported.

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

Approximately 3,800 products were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold from Jan. 2007 to June 2008.

Companies:

   Distributor     Goodman Company L.P.
                   Houston
                   Texas
                   United States

Non-Commercial owners should immediately stop using and unplug the
air conditioning and heating units.  Consumers can contact the
appropriate company by telephone, as noted below, for additional
information.


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Harnish" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Glen Harnish, Daniel Durgin, and Craig Moskowitz, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-14075 (D. Mass., November 4, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to safeguard customers'
personal and financial information.

The Home Depot, Inc. is the world's largest home improvement
retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Pastor, Esq.
      PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 742-9700
      Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
      E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

         - and -

      Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
      LEONARD LAW OFFICE, PC
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 329-1295
      E-mail: ploenard@theleonardlawoffice.com


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls One Lot of 1% Lidocaine HCI for Injection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., announced it will initiate a voluntary recall of
one lot of 1% Lidocaine HCI for Injection, USP, 10 mg per mL, 30
mL Single-dose, Preservative-Free (NDC 0409-4279-02; Lot 40-316-
DK, Expiry 1APRIL2016) to the user level due to a confirmed
customer report of particulate in a single unit.  Hospira has
identified the particulate as a human hair, embedded in and
attached to a pinched area of the stopper.  To date, Hospira has
not received reports of any adverse events associated with this
issue for this lot.

In the unlikely event that the particulate breaks and pieces are
able to pass through the intravenous catheter, injected
particulate material may result in local inflammation, phlebitis,
and/or low-level allergic response to the particulate or
microembolic effects.  If the solution with particulate is
administered via caudal or lumbar epidural route using appropriate
technique, particulate material injected into the epidural space
may result in local inflammation, mechanical disruption of tissue,
or immune response to the particulate

This lot was distributed nationwide from May 2014 through June
2014.  Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine the
root cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.  This
recall is being carried out to the medical facility/retail level
(both human and veterinary).  Please notify all users in your
facility.  If you have further distributed the recalled product
please notify any accounts or additional locations which may have
received the recalled product from you and instruct them if they
have redistributed the product to notify their accounts, locations
or facilities to the medical facility/retail level.  In addition,
customers should inform potential users of these products in their
organizations of this notification.  Hospira will be notifying its
direct customers via a recall letter and will arrange for impacted
product to be returned to Stericycle.  For additional assistance,
call Stericycle at 1-877-546-5069 between the hours of 8am to 5pm
ET, Monday through Friday.

For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the
information provided below.

   -- Hospira Global Complaint Management (1-800-441-4100 /M-F,
      8am to 5pm CT)

   -- Hospira Medical Communications (1-800-615-0187 OR
      medcom@hospira.com (Available 24 hours a day/7 days per
      week)

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by facsimile.


INTEL CORP: Pentium 4 Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You might be eligible for $15 cash if you bought a computer with a
Pentium 4 processor between November 20, 2000 and June 30, 2002.

www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com
1-877-435-1884

What Is the Class Action About?

The plaintiffs claim Intel manipulated the performance benchmark
scores for its first-generation Pentium 4 processors and that HP
assisted with Intel's allegedly unlawful conduct.  Intel and HP
deny any liability and all claims of misconduct and Intel contends
the benchmarks challenged by Plaintiffs fairly measured the
performance of the Pentium 4 processor.

How Do You Get a Payment?

Class members can submit a claim form electronically at
www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com

Class members may also request a paper claim form by calling 1-
877-435-1884, or print a claim form from
www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com

You do not need to provide receipts or proof of purchase.

The deadline to make a claim for payment is April 14, 2015.

Who Are Class Members?

The Class includes all residents of the United States, except
Illinois residents, who (i) purchased a new computer equipped with
a Pentium 4 processor between November 20, 2000 and December 31,
2001, and (ii) purchased the computer for personal, family, or
household use.  The Class also includes all residents of the
United States, except Illinois residents, who (i) purchased a new
computer equipped with a first-generation (Willamette) Pentium 4
processor or a Pentium 4 processor at speeds below 2.0 GHz between
January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2002, and (ii) purchased the computer
for personal, family, or household use.  Individuals excluded from
the class include current Intel employees and persons employed by
Intel between November 20, 2000 and June 30, 2002.

What are Your Options?

As a Class Member, you must decide whether you want to stay in the
Class, submit a claim, comment on or object to the settlement, or
be excluded from the Class.  You can get detailed information
regarding your options at www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com

The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Janet Skold, et al. v.
Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company, Superior Court of
California for the County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-05-CV-039231
to consider approving this settlement and attorneys' fees on
January 23, 2015.  You may appear at the hearing, but you don't
have to.  The deadline to ask to be excluded from the settlement
or to object to the settlement is December 15, 2014.

Questions? Visit www.IntelPentium4Litigation.com or call 1-877-
435-1884.


JFC INTERNATIONAL: Recalls All Lot Codes of 3-Pack Hapi Pudding
---------------------------------------------------------------
JFC International Inc. of Los Angeles, CA is voluntarily recalling
all lot codes of its 3-pack Hapi Pudding with a net weight of 8.46
ounces (UPC 11152 13417), because they may contain undeclared
milk.  People who have allergies to milk run the risk of a serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the
products.

The recalled product, "Hapi Pudding" was distributed nationwide to
retail stores.

The product comes in a pack of three, weighing a total of 8.46
ounces, in clear plastic containers, with an orange and white seal
on the top.  The seal has the words "Hapi Pudding" with an image
of a pudding.  The 3 pack of pudding is plastic wrapped, with the
product information found at the bottom of the product.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk to the consumer.  Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused by an inadvertent
omission on the label by the producer during the revision of the
packaging process.

JFC has immediately responded to this issue and have already taken
action to stop sales and distribution of the affected product.

Consumers who have purchased the product "Hapi Pudding" are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-633-
1004, Monday - Friday, 8:30am-5pm PST.


KAM WAH: Recalls U.loveit Instant Drink Powders
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9418

Affected products: U.loveit Instant Drink Powder with all codes
where barley and milk are not declared on the label


KAYDEN INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Lebarron, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. Kayden Industries (USA), Inc., Case No.
6:14-cv-06628 (W.D.N.Y., November 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages.

Kayden Industries (USA), Inc. is a provider of services to the
liquid-solid separation industry used for petroleum drilling,
wastewater management, and mining.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy C. Selander, Esq.
      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      Alexander M. Baggio, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: selander@nka.com
              fisher@nka.com
              abaggio@nka.com


KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Appellate Ct. Reverses TCPA Class Cert. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
BALLARD RN CENTER, INC., f/k/a Ballard Nursing Center, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KOHLL'S PHARMACY AND HOMECARE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, NO. 1-13-1543. 2014 IL App (1st) 131543
is an interlocutory appeal wherein defendant Kohll's appeals the
trial court's decision to grant class certification to plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Ballard allegedly received on March 3, 2010, an
unsolicited one-page fax from Kohll's which advertised corporate
flu shot services.  Ballard filed suit against Kohll's, seeking
(Count I) statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Section 227 (2006)) (TCPA) and (Count
II) the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2010)), and also
((Count III) damages for conversion of ink and paper.  Ballard
additionally filed a motion for class certification, requesting
that the court certify a class of all parties who, on or about
March 3, 2010, were sent unsolicited advertising faxes by Kohll's.
Discovery showed that on March 3, 2010, Kohll's sent the fax at
issue to a total of 4,760 fax numbers and successfully transmitted
it to 4,142 of them.  The trial court granted Ballard's motion and
certified the class on April 15, 2013. Kohll's appeals this
certification order.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division
affirms in part and reverses in part.  Specifically, the Appellate
Court reverses the trial court's class certification insofar as it
pertains to Count I, but it affirms in all other respects. Upon
remand, the trial court is directed to revisit the issue of class
certification in light of the fact that only counts II and III
remain.

A copy of the Appellate Court's November 6, 2014 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/nmyh46from Leagle.com.


KULANA FOODS: Recalls 4,465 Lbs. of Frozen Cooked Pork Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kulana Foods Ltd., a Hilo, Hawaii establishment is recalling
approximately 4,465 pounds of frozen, fully cooked pork products
because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen.  The products
are formulated with a soy sauce that contains wheat, a known
allergen, which is not declared on the label.

The products subject to recall include:

Various weight (approximately .75 - .90 lb.) packages of "MOUNTAIN
APPLE BRAND Teri Smoked Pork" with identifying case codes: 03414,
07214, 12814, 16914, 21114, 28114, 03713, 05113, 06513, 23313, or
34513.

5-pound packages of "MOUNTAIN APPLE BRAND Teri Smoked Pork" with
identifying case code: 09214.

The products bear the establishment number "EST. 12445" inside the
USDA mark of inspection on the label.  The products were produced
on various dates between Feb. 6, 2013 and Oct. 8, 2014 and shipped
to retail locations and for foodservice use on the islands of
Hawaii and Oahu.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a label review
at the establishment.  FSIS personnel are responsible for
verifying that establishments are actively labeling the eight most
common food allergens.  Wheat was a sub-ingredient of soy sauce
used in the product and was inadvertently left off the product
label.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Sheryl Taka, company office manager, at 808-959-9144.


LABORERS' INT'L UNION: Faces "Terry" Suit Over CBA
--------------------------------------------------
Lizzie Terry, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. Laborers' International Union of North America Local
Union #332, Samuel Staten, Jr., and Team Clean, Inc., Case No.
2:14-cv-06330 (E.D. Pa., November 4, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure and refusal to comply with the terms of the
collective bargaining agreement.

Laborers' International Union of North America Local Union #332 is
a labor organization which maintains a principal office at 1310
Wallace Street, Philadelphia, PA 19132.

Team Clean, Inc. is engaged in the commercial janitorial service
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent J. Pentima, Esq.
      PENTIMA LAW FIRM PLLC
      30 Rock Hill Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (484) 436-2119
      E-mail: vjp@pentimalaw.com


LAUNDRY HOUSE: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mayra De Jesus Ventura-Rivera, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. Laundry House, LLC, and Sanjay M.
Patel, Case No. 1:14-cv-08858 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a coin operated laundry facility
offering a wash and fold service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEONA'S PIZZERIA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Luis Perez, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. Leona's Pizzeria, Inc. and Tania Mavrakis,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08799 (N.D. Ill., November 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a pizzeria within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LET'S OF OCALA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Candy Townsend, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Let's of Ocala LLC and Let's of Ocala II, LLC, d/b/a
Palms Internet Caf‚, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No.
5:14-cv-00611 (M.D. Fla., November 4, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, an additional amount as liquidated damages,
obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a gaming establishment in Marion
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


LITTON LOAN: Southwest's Deadline to Respond to FAC Due Nov. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on November 5, 2014, a joint
stipulation between the plaintiff and defendant Southwest Business
Corporation in the case captioned MARGO PERRYMAN, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LITTON LOAN
SERVICING, LP; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; SOUTHWEST BUSINESS
CORPORATION; AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02261-JST, (N.D. Cal.)
extending the briefing schedule and hearing date.

The Court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/gTuTeFfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

* Southwest's response to the First Amended Complaint (FAC) will
  be filed on or before November 17, 2014;

* Plaintiff's opposition response will be filed on or before
  December 15, 2014;

* Southwest's reply to Plaintiff's opposition will be filed on or
  before December 24, 2014;

* Hearing on Southwest's motion will be on January 8, 2015 at
  2:00 p.m.; and

* This Schedule will not alter the existing deadlines for other
  defendants in this action.

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP, DENNIS J. KELLY --
djk@dillinghammurphy.com -- San Francisco, California, Attorneys
for Defendant, SOUTHWEST BUSINESS CORPORATION.

LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY, SHERI L. KELLY --
slk@sherikellylaw.com -- San Jose, CA, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Margo Perryman.


LONG-KOGEN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Coronel" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Coronel, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Long-Kogen, Inc. and Steven Tres,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08784 (N.D. Ill., November 4,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Long-Kogen, Inc. offers residential and commercial property
management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


M & W FOOD: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Martinez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. M & W Food, Inc., and Guowei Mao, Case No.
1:14-cv-08849 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCDONALD'S CORP: Recalls Hello Kitty-Themed Whistles
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
McDonald's Corp., of Oakbrook, Ill., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2.3 million in the U.S. and about 200,000 in Canada
"Hello Kitty Birthday Lollipop" Whistles.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Components inside of the whistle can detach, posing choking and
aspiration hazards to young children.

McDonald's has received two reports of children who coughed out
pieces of the whistle that they had sucked into their mouths,
including one child who received medical attention.

The recalled whistles are red and were included in a plastic Hello
Kitty figurine holding a pink heart-shaped lollipop.  The whistle
can be removed and used to make sounds by inhaling or exhaling
through the mouthpiece.  When closed, the figurine measures about
3 inches in height and width and 1 3/4 inches in depth.  The
whistle measures about 1 3/4 inches in height and width and 3/4
inches in depth.  A picture of Hello Kitty appears on both sides
of the whistle.  The text "1976, 2014 SANRIO CO., LTD." appears
above Hello Kitty's face on the whistle, and "Made for McDonald's
China CCW Chine" appears below Hello Kitty's face on the whistle.
The bag in which the toy is packaged includes the text "Hello
Kitty Birthday Lollipop" and the number "6" in the upper right
corner.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/kpNwR8

The recalled products were manufactured in China and distributed
exclusively at McDonald's restaurants nationwide from Oct. 2014
through the first week of Nov. 2014 with Happy Meals and Mighty
Kids Meals.

Consumers should immediately take the whistle away from children
and return it to any McDonald's for a free replacement toy and
either a yogurt tube or a bag of apple slices.


MCDONALD'S USA: Court Tosses Class Cert. Motion in "Bell" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Moody, Jr., denied a motion for class
certification in the case captioned DASMINE BELL, Plaintiff, v.
McDONALD'S USA, LLC and McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 8:14-CV-2742-T-30EAJ, (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint alleging violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") on October 30, 2014.  He
alleges that Defendants violated the FCRA with respect to him and
the putative class members through their use of undisclosed
consumer report information including procuring consumer reports
without making proper disclosures, and obtaining consumer reports
without proper authorization.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover for
himself and for a class of persons similarly situated statutory
damages, costs and attorney's fees, equitable relief, and other
appropriate relief pursuant to the FCRA.

Judge Moody denied the Plaintiff's motion without prejudice as
premature. A copy of the Court's November 6, 2014 order is
available at http://is.gd/uIRaSUfrom Leagle.com.

Dasmine Bell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon J. Hill --
bhill@wfclaw.com -- Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA & Luis A. Cabassa --
lcabassa@wfclaw.com -- Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA.


MEAD JOHNSON: High Court Nixes Writ of Certiorari in Enfamil Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Shuchman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
case alleging that the maker of Enfamil infant formula is liable
for causing an infant's brain damage will proceed in district
court after the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 denied the company's
petition for writ of certiorari.

Mead Johnson & Co. had asked the high court to hear the case in
the wake of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, which concluded in June that a judge improperly excluded
the opinion of three experts that Enfamil may have caused the
baby's injury.

The Eighth Circuit's ruling was heralded by the product liability
plaintiffs bar for limiting defendants' ability to mount a
successful Daubert challenge.  The Supreme Court's 1993 decision
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals established the standard
for admitting expert testimony in federal courts.

By refusing to hear the case on Nov. 10, a lawyer for the
plaintiff said the high court tacitly affirmed the Eighth
Circuit's holding that judges weighing Daubert challenges are
limited to assessing an expert's credentials and methodology.

"The Eighth Circuit said the district court had gone beyond its
mandated gatekeeper role to a fact-finder role," said Kay Nord
Hunt -- kay@lommen.com -- a partner at Lommen Abdo who represents
plaintiff Scott Johnson.  "It is telling district courts to make
sure they do not go too far."

The underlying case was brought in 2011 on behalf of an infant who
contracted a severe form of neonatal meningitis caused by a
bacterium called Cronobacter sakazakii, or C. sak.  Mr. Johnson,
the child's guardian ad litem, alleged that the source of the
infection was contaminated Enfamil infant formula produced by
Mead Johnson.  The company countered that the contamination could
have come from other sources, including water or the home
environment.

U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen in Minneapolis granted summary
judgment to Mead Johnson in February 2013.  The plaintiff's
experts, she concluded, hadn't adequately ruled out other possible
sources of C. sak contamination, and therefore failed to conduct
an adequate "differential diagnosis."

An Eighth Circuit panel reversed Judge Ericksen's ruling in June.

"District courts are admonished not to weigh or assess the
correctness of competing expert opinions," the three-judge panel
wrote.  "As long as the expert's scientific testimony rests upon
'good grounds, based on what is known' it should be tested by the
adversary process with competing expert testimony and cross-
examination, rather than excluded by the court at the outset."

Mead Johnson petitioned the Supreme Court to take the case in
September, arguing that the Eighth Circuit's ruling had strayed
"far afield" from other circuit courts and clashed with the
standard of review mandated by earlier cases, including Daubert.

The petition was filed by Anthony Anscombe, Kirk Jenkins and Mary
Buckley of Sedgwick, and by Brian Thompson --
brian.thomson@stinsonleonard.com -- of Stinson Leonard Street.
Mr. Anscombe could not immediately be reached.

Ms. Hunt didn't file an opposition brief.  She told The Litigation
Daily other circuits have agreed with the Eighth Circuit in
similar cases.  Trial in the Minneapolis case is scheduled for
May 2015.


MGB STEAKHOUSE: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vilma Ramos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MGB Steakhouse, Inc. and Marvcus Patton, Case No.
1:14-cv-01484 (E.D. Va., November 4, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a steakhouse restaurant within the
State of Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC.
      836 Bonifant St
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-9373
      Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
      E-mail: ggreenberg@zipinlaw.com


MICHAEL MEISNER: Motion for Reconsideration in Davis Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
State inmates Jeffrey M. Davis, Jr., and Christopher Goodvine
filed a proposed amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, concerning the conditions of their confinement at CCI. Davis
and Goodvine also moved to certify a class action. On October 15,
2014, the court denied the motion for class certification,
dismissed without prejudice the individual claims lodged by
Goodvine, and ordered Davis to replead. Goodvine has filed a
motion for reconsideration, arguing that he should be allowed to
proceed jointly with Davis on the proposed class claims.

District Judge William M. Conley disagrees and denies the motion
for reconsideration.

A copy of Judge Conley's November 5, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/isQsGmfrom Leagle.com.

The case is JEFFREY M. DAVIS, JR. and CHRISTOPHER GOODVINE,
Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MEISNER, et al., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-278-
WMC, (W.D. Wis.).

Jeffrey Davis II, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Michael Meisner, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis
Finkelmeyer, Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Scott Walker, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis Finkelmeyer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Gary Ankarlo, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis Finkelmeyer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Ed Wall, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis Finkelmeyer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

Dr. Wood, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis Finkelmeyer,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.

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


MIKE PACHECO'S LAWN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Faustin, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Mike Pacheco's Lawn Service, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation
and Michael Pacheco, Case No. 9:14-cv-81361 (S.D. Fla., November
5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping services company in
Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linette Michelle Waterman, Esq.
      WATERMAN AND WOLFE, P.A.
      2090 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 205
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 697-2644
      Facsimile: (561) 697-2647
      E-mail: waterman@watermanandwolfe.com


MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT: Recalls Cycling Shoe Covers
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Posting date:             October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fall Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-42015

Affected products: MEC Drencher Shoe Covers and MEC Cycling Shoe
Covers

The recall involves adjustable MEC shoe covers intended for use
over a variety of cycling and non-cycling shoes or boots.  The
unisex shoe cover is available in six sizes: x-small, small,
medium, large, x-large and xx-large.

The shoe cover is a slip-on waterproof bootie made of black nylon
with reflective patches.  The bottom is mostly open with a piece
of material under the toe to hold the front in place and an
adjustable Velcro strap in the arch area.

These two models are included in the recall:

Drencher Shoe Cover Model Number 5029-526
Cycling Shoe Cover Model Number 5009-241

The shoe cover can get caught on the pedal if the shoe cover does
not fit entirely flush against the shoe sole.  This can prevent
the rider from dismounting, resulting in a fall hazard.

Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) has received five incidents of shoe
covers getting caught on the pedals.  This resulted in three
riders falling over in which one rider reported a broken wrist,
cracked rib and a sore neck.

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

Approximately 12,600 units of the Drencher shoe covers and 49,500
units of the Cycling shoe covers were sold at MEC stores across
Canada.

The Drencher shoe covers were manufactured in Vietnam and sold
from Oct. 2012 to Oct. 24, 2014.  The Cycling shoe covers were
sold from Sept. 2005 to Jan. 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer      Sambu Vina Sports Co. Ltd.
                     Ho Chi Minh City
                     Viet Nam

   Distributor       Mountain Equipment Co-op
                     Vancouver
                     British Columbia
                     Canada


NATIONAL GENERAL: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Jackson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. National General Insurance Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-
00927 (M.D.N.C., November 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

National General Insurance Company own and operate call centers
located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, St. Louis, Missouri,
Cleveland, Ohio, Hillsboro, Oregon, and Ontario, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
      PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
      100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
      Chapel Hill, NC 27517
      Telephone: (919) 942-5200
      Facsimile: (866) 397-8671
      E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com

         - and -

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, Missouri 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

         - and -

      Eli Karsh, Esq.
      LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
      230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200
      St. Louis, Missouri 63105
      Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13
      Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
      E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com


NEW HOPE MILLS: Recalls Gluten Free Chia Pancake and Waffle Mix
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Hope Mills Manufacturing of Auburn, NY is recalling all Gluten
Free Chia Pancake and Waffle Mix because it may contain undeclared
soy.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

New Hope Mills Gluten Free Chia Pancake and Waffle Mix was
distributed to distributors and retailers in NY, PA, NH, OK, and
FL.

The affected product, New Hope Mills Gluten Free Chia Pancake and
Waffle Mix, can be identified as a 16 OZ bag in a boxboard box.
The box itself is primarily red and white, and includes on the
front of box, the New Hope Mills logo along with a picture of the
Chia Pancakes.  The UPC code on the box reads "07470353012".  The
boxes affected will have one of the following "Best By Dates" on
the bottom of the box: 11/13/2014, 11/14/2014, 2/26/2015,
7/29/2015, 10/4/2015, 12/13/2015

No illnesses have been reported to date.

New Hope Mills was contacted on 10/15/2014 by The Raymond-Hadley
Corp., the Contract Manufacturer of New Hope Mills Gluten Free
Chia Pancake and Waffle Mix.  The Raymond-Hadley Corp. notified
New Hope Mills that they had discovered that New Hope Mills Gluten
Free Chia Pancake and Waffle Mix was made with an ingredient
containing soy and was produced and distributed in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of soy.

Consumers who have purchased New Hope Mills Gluten Free Chia
Pancake and Waffle Mix are urged to return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 315-252-2676.  Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm, EST.


NORDSTROM INC: Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
California federal judge has rejected a motion by Nordstrom Inc.
and a luxury denim manufacturer to dismiss a proposed class action
accusing them of falsely marketing jeans as "Made in the USA,"
ruling the suit's claims are not preempted by federal law.

Judge Dana Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the motion by defendants Nordstrom
and A.G. Adriano Goldschmeid Inc., a maker of denim products,
after rejecting their argument that federal law trumps California
law when labeling apparel products that contain foreign-made
component parts as being "Made in the USA."

The judge's Oct. 27 order and conclusions followed a similar class
action complaint filed in California federal court on Oct. 29
against American clothing retailer Lands' End Inc., accusing it of
falsely labeling foreign-made apparel as being produced in the
United States.

In his complaint against Nordstrom and A.G., plaintiff David Paz
said he bought a pair of A.G.'s "The Protege" brand jeans with a
"Made in the U.S.A" label at a Nordstrom store in San Diego in
May 2014.  He claims he relied on the product's representation and
believed he was supporting U.S. jobs by making the purchase.
Paz argues he was deceived because the jeans "actually contain
component parts made outside the United States," including fabric,
thread, buttons, rivets and other subcomponents. In his complaint,
he asserted claims for relief under California laws that are
stricter than federal laws in defining when manufacturers can
label their product as being made in America.

The defendants argue, however, that the state laws are preempted
by the Federal Trade Commission Act and Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act, citing the federal statutes' doctrine of
conflict preemption, "where it is impossible for a private party
to comply with both state and federal law."

The parties agree the federal and state statutes set out different
standards for the use of a "Made in U.S.A." label, but disagree as
to whether that difference results in conflict preemption, Judge
Sabraw said.

Nordstrom and A.G. argued in their motion that it's impossible for
them to comply with both state and federal statutes when it comes
to products that contain some foreign content, because the federal
law would allow them to use the "Made in U.S.A." label while the
California law would not.

The judge disagreed: "Outside California, defendants could use the
"Made in U.S.A." labels, but inside California, they could not.
This may be burdensome for defendants, but it is not impossible
for them to do so."


NUTEK DISPOSABLES: Sued Over Bacteria in Baby Wipe Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Melford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nutek Disposables, Inc., and First Quality
Consumer Products, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08779 (N.D. Ill.,
November 4, 2014),is brought against the Defendants for failure to
disclose the presence of potentially harmful bacteria in its
Simply Right Baby Wipe product.

Nutek Disposables, Inc. manufactured, designed, and distributed
the Simply Right Baby Wipe products.

First Quality Consumer Products, LLC sells the Simply Right wipes
through the Sam's Club website, as well as in brick-and-mortar
Sam's Club stores, and other brick and mortar stores throughout
the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon M. Cavanaugh, Esq.
      Gregory Wood Jones, Esq.
      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 477-2790
      E-mail: bcavanaugh@siprut.com
              gjones@siprut.com
              jsiprut@siprut.com


OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Substantive Motion to Certify Class Due Nov 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington denied without
prejudice an amended motion for class certification in the case
captioned LORI SHAMBLIN, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, ET AL.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM, (M.D. Fla.).

Shamblin filed this putative class action case on September 19,
2013, alleging that Obama for America violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, during the
2012 presidential election.  New Partners Consulting, Inc.
responded to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint on
September 10, 2014, by filing an Answer and Affirmative Defenses.
New Partners Consulting, Inc. then filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction on September 25, 2014, which
the Court has denied.

The Court notes that Shamblin filed this Amended Motion for Class
Certification in the abundance of caution, while Defendant New
Partners Consulting, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss was pending, as a
"placeholder." Rather than deferring its ruling on the present
Motion, which is six pages in length and devoid of substantive
analysis, the Court finds the better course of action is to deny
the Motion without prejudice.

"Shamblin shall file, if at all, her substantive Motion to Certify
Class by November 17, 2014, in accordance with the Second Amended
Case Management and Scheduling Order," ruled Judge Covington in
her November 5, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/Zf3TiMfrom Leagle.com.

Lori Shamblin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Quiat --
aquiat@alqpclaw.com -- Andrew L. Quiat, P.C., Jack D. McInnes --
mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP, Jeffrey M. Paskert --
jpaskert@mpdlegal.com -- Mills Paskert Divers, PA, Joseph J.
Mellon -- jmellon@stklaw.com -- The Mellon Law Firm, Mary F.
Mellon -- mmellon@mellonlaw.com -- The Mellon Law Firm & Richard
M. Paul, III -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP.

Obama for America, Defendant, represented by Debra R. Bernard --
DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Elisabeth C. Frost
-- EFrost@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Graham M Wilson --
GWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas
-- gthomas@hklaw.com -- Thomas & LoCicero, PL, Marc Erik Elias --
MElias@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP & Rachel E. Fugate --
rachel.fugate@hklaw.com -- Thomas & LoCicero, PL.

DNC Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elisabeth C.
Frost, Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero,
PL & Marc Erik Elias, Perkins Coie, LLP.

New Partners Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale
Thomas Golden, Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC.

Peter Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli --
meditr@aol.com -- Peter J. Grilli, PA.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Marked-Up Fees, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Weiner, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
public similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a
Florida corporation, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2:14-at-01402 (E.D. Cal.,
November 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants engage in a scheme
to disguise hidden, marked-up fees so that it could earn
additional, undisclosed profits.

The Defendants are licensed to service mortgage loans in all fifty
states, including California, the District of Columbia, and two
U.S. territories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
      Roland Tellis, Esq.
      Mark Pifko, Esq.
      Michael Isaac Miller, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 839-2333
      Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
      E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
              rtellis@baronbudd.com
              mpifko@baronbudd.com
              imiller@baronbudd.com


ORACLE CORP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Oracle Corp.
lost a bid on Nov. 7 to put a quick end to antitrust claims from a
bevy of third party technical support firms that say the company's
manner of supplying updates for its computer servers and Solaris
operating system illegally restricts competition.

Sun Microsystems, which first released Solaris in 1992, had
routinely permitted businesses to obtain updates, software patches
and bug fixes, creating an open market for support services.

Oracle ended that policy following its acquisition of Sun in 2010,
and began providing updates only to customers who purchased
expensive technical support contracts, according to Terix Computer
Company Inc., Maintech Inc. and Volt Delta Resources
With seeming reluctance, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the
Northern District of California said he was bound to let the
companies proceed with allegations that the change constitutes a
violation of federal antitrust laws that has allowed Oracle to
monopolize the market for Solaris support services.

"With respect to certain of defendants' tying-related claims, as
much as it might struggle to make sense of them under prevailing
economic theory, the court nevertheless must defer to the Supreme
Court's binding precedent and permit defendants to proceed," Judge
Grewal wrote in the 29-page opinion.

Later in his ruling, Judge Grewal suggested he has a dim view of
the precedent, the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Eastman Kodak
v. Image Technical Services.

"To say that Kodak has failed to inspire a strong following would
be an understatement.  Judges and academics have struggled to
understand the Supreme Court's underlying economic rationale . . .
" he wrote.  "But whatever its popular reception, Kodak remains
the law of the land and this court is bound to apply it."

Despite Judge Grewal's sympathies, Oracle now finds itself playing
defense in litigation it initiated.

Oracle sued Terix and Maintech in July 2013 accusing the IT
companies of stealing copyrighted code, patches, updates, and bug
fixes for Solaris.  Oracle later amended the complaint to add more
defendants offering Solaris support services.

According to Oracle, the companies either obtained access
credentials to Oracle's support website under false pretenses or
encouraged Oracle customers to log in and download updates to
Solaris unlawfully.  The suit survived a motion to dismiss earlier
this year.

Lawyers for the support companies responded with counterclaims
alleging that Oracle was illegally tying Solaris updates to
support services, using its copyright monopoly to lock in
customers who had previously been free to shop around.  The
independent service providers contend they could provide less
expensive and superior technical support if customers were not
dependent on Oracle for updates.

"This is the epitome of a tied market," wrote lawyers representing
Maintech and Volt.

Oracle, represented by Bingham McCutchen's Geoffrey Howard and
Daniel Wall at Latham & Watkins, argued that the counterclaims
fell outside the four-year statute of limitations.  But Judge
Grewal found that Oracle tolled the statute of limitations by
filing its copyright claims in 2013.

Oracle also argued that the defendants had not shown a relevant
market for their counterclaims.  Separating the sale of software
patches and updates from the provision of technical support
creates distinct markets "that exist only in the imaginations of
defendants' lawyers, not in the real world," the company's lawyers
stated in their motion to dismiss.

Judge Grewal disagreed. "No matter how common the industry
practice of combining up-front license payments and annual support
payments, before the Oracle-Sun merger, it is alleged that
customers could download updates and firmware for little or no
cost," he wrote.  While Oracle insists that it never ran an
updates business, he continued, the defendants allege "that this
is exactly what Sun did before the acquisition."

Oracle came away on Nov. 7 with some wins.  Judge Grewal dismissed
counterclaims for false advertising, copyright misuse and contract
interference.  He also struck all 87 of the defendants'
affirmative defenses to Oracle's copyright infringement claims.
He granted the defendants a chance to amend their counterclaims
and defenses.

Terix is represented by Robinson & Wood, Rimon P.C., and Lardier
McNair.  GCA Law Partners has represented Maintech and Volt Delta
Resources, and in September, lawyers with Durie Tangri entered
appearances for the companies.

Lawyers for the defendants weren't immediately available on
Nov. 7.  A spokeswoman for Oracle declined to comment.


OSOLEO WILDCRAFTERS: Recalls Unpasteurized Cider Due to E. Coli
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Osoleo Wildcrafters
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 30, 2014 has been updated
to include additional product information.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling unpasteurized cider from the marketplace due
to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.  Consumers should not
consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have the products in your home.  If the
products are in your home, do not consume them.

Food contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 may not look or smell
spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include nausea,
vomiting, mild to severe abdominal cramps and watery to bloody
diarrhea.  In severe cases of illness, some people may have
seizures or strokes, need blood transfusions and kidney dialysis
or live with permanent kidney damage.  In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

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


PAN ASIA: Recalls Ottogi Curry Products Due to Undeclared Mustard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Pan Asia Food Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9411

Affected products: Ottogi Premium Vermont Curry Hot with all codes
where mustard is not declared on the label


PFIZER INC: Judge Dismisses Group of Pharmacists From Lipitor MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has dismissed a group of California
pharmacists from multidistrict litigation in which they and others
claimed drug makers Pfizer and Ranbaxy violated antitrust laws by
agreeing to postpone the rollout of a generic version of the
anticholesterol drug Lipitor.

The pharmacists claimed Pfizer and Ranbaxy violated California's
antitrust law by reaching an agreement that extended the patent on
Lipitor by 20 months.  But U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan said
their complaint failed to state a plausible claim because they did
not calculate a reasonable valuation of nonmonetary relief granted
in the Pfizer-Ranbaxy deal.

The ruling dismissing the California pharmacists comes after the
Sept. 12 dismissal of a group of direct purchaser plaintiffs,
including Stephen L. LaFrance Holdings, Burlington Drug Co., Value
Drug Co., Professional Drug Co., Rochester Drug Co-Operative and
American Sales Co., and the Oct. 30 dismissal of a group of end
payors, including Walgreen Co., Meijer, Rite Aid and Giant Eagle.
Still pending in the MDL are claims by a group of about 20 direct
purchasers who opted out of inclusion in the direct purchaser
class.

The plaintiffs claimed Pfizer made a "reverse payment" to Ranbaxy
by agreeing to forbearance of a damages claim in a separate
dispute relating to the Pfizer drug Accupril in exchange for
Ranbaxy's agreement to delay its launch of generic Lipitor and by
allowing Ranbaxy to launch its generic version of the drug in
certain foreign markets.

The pharmacists claimed that certain public statements by Pfizer's
management served to show their cause of action was plausible,
including a statement by former Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler, which
described the damages owed to it by Ranbaxy in the Accupril case
as "very, very substantial."

But Judge Sheridan said an estimate of the damages is necessary to
permit the court to evaluate the reverse-payment settlement
agreement under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Federal
Trade Commission v. Actavis.

In the Actavis case, the court said such reverse-payment
settlement agreements could be deemed restraint of trade if they
involved a large, unjustified payment between the patent holder
and alleged infringer.

The Lipitor litigation stems from a June 2008 agreement between
Pfizer and Ranbaxy concerning the latter's plans to produce
generic versions of Lipitor and two other drugs, Caduet and
Accupril, according to court documents.

The California pharmacist plaintiffs said they were not attempting
to rely on Actavis or to allege a reverse payment, let alone one
that is large and unjustified.  Rather, they claimed the agreement
as a per se illegal market allocation agreement.  They sought
damages under California's antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, by
reason of having paid noncompetitive prices for Lipitor as a
result of the agreement, but Judge Sheridan said the claims were
implausible in light of his dismissal of the direct purchasers.

Gil Messina -- gmessina@messinalawfirm.com -- of the Messina Law
Firm in Holmdel, N.J., representing the California pharmacists,
said he would appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.  He said his case didn't belong with the others
because it is not a class action and, unlike the others, claimed
the Pfizer-Ranbaxy deal was a violation per se of antitrust laws.

Pfizer spokeswoman Christine Regan Lindenboom provided a statement
on behalf of the company, which said, "Pfizer is pleased with the
court's decision to dismiss this case.  Pfizer has always believed
that the procurement and enforcement of its Lipitor patents,
including its settlement, was at all times proper and lawful.  The
company will continue to vigorously protect and defend its
intellectual property, which is vital to developing new medicines
like Lipitor that save and enhance patient lives."

Lawyers representing Ranbaxy in the case did not return calls.


PFIZER INC: November 18 Hearing Scheduled for Zoloft MDL
--------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that so
far, plaintiffs in ongoing multidistrict litigation against
Pfizer have failed to convince a federal judge that there's a
valid causal connection between Zoloft use and birth defects.

Search the Web for the terms "Zoloft" and "pregnancy," and the
first thing you'll see is advertising for plaintiffs lawyers
touting claims that Zoloft, the blockbuster antidepressant made by
Pfizer Inc., causes a gruesome array of birth defects when taken
during pregnancy.

And now Pfizer and its lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, led by mass torts maven Sheila Birnbaum --
sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- say the case has gone on long
enough.

On Nov. 18, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe in Philadelphia is
scheduled to hold a hearing that could decide the fate of all 600
cases in the 2-year-old Zoloft MDL.  If the plaintiffs get their
way, Judge Rufe will allow them to present new expert testimony,
despite the fact that four prior experts on general causation were
stricken from the case. Pfizer, meanwhile, has persuaded the judge
to allow separate briefing on whether there's already enough
evidence to toss the cases for good.

"Plaintiffs cannot establish general causation because this court
has excluded all of their experts," Pfizer's lawyers argued in
motion for summary judgment filed last week.  "Without admissible
and sufficient evidence to establish this essential element of
their claims, plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law."

A summary judgment win would be a major coup for Pfizer and its
lawyers at Quinn Emanuel, who took the case with them when they
joined the firm from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom last
year.  By knocking out the entire federal Zoloft docket in one
fell swoop, such a ruling would highlight the power of a
successful Daubert challenge in a potentially runaway mass tort.

GlaxoSmithKline plc, in contrast, paid a reported $1 billion to
settle parallel claims related to the antidepressant Paxil in
2010, after a jury awarded $2.5 million to the family of a child
born with heart defects in the first of those cases to go to
trial.

Zoloft is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor that was first
marketed by Pfizer for treating depression in 1991.  The
plaintiffs claim the drug -- which has been widely prescribed to
pregnant women -- leads to serious problems in newborns ranging
from autism to heart defects.  In June, however, Judge Rufe sided
with Pfizer following a Daubert hearing and tossed the plaintiffs'
key expert on general causation, finding that his methodology was
flawed. In August the judge reached a similar conclusion regarding
the plaintiffs' three remaining experts, ruling that they couldn't
adequately establish causation in humans.

Last month the plaintiffs asked Judge Rufe to let them introduce a
new expert on general causation to show that Zoloft can lead to
congenital heart defects.  They also asked the judge to reject
Pfizer's blanket bid for summary judgment, and instead to allow
them to voluntarily dismiss their own cases without prejudice.
Granting summary judgment, the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote, would
"foreclos[e] their right to ever assert a birth defect claim
against Pfizer irrespective of the strength of the emerging
scientific evidence in support of such claims."

Pfizer, not surprisingly, takes a different view.  "Plaintiffs are
trying to render the exhaustive Daubert process, including this
court's decisions, a nullity or a game of 'heads-I-win, tails-we-
flip-again,'" the company countered in an Oct. 21 brief.
"Plaintiffs' effort to revive their claims on the eve of their
dismissal with prejudice on summary judgment -- either by naming a
new expert or dismissing cases without prejudice -- would create a
completely one-sided form of litigation that is demonstrably
unjust."

Judge Rufe will hear arguments on the plaintiffs bid to introduce
their new expert on Nov. 18.  The plaintiffs' response to Pfizer's
summary judgment motion is due in mid-December.

In addition to Ms. Birnbaum, Pfizer's defense team includes Mark
Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- and Bert Wolff --
bertwolff@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel, along with Pamela
Yates -- pamela.yates@kayescholer.com -- of Kaye Scholer, James
Hooper Jr. -- hooper@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
and Robert Heim of Dechert.  The plaintiffs are represented by
Reilly Pozner, the Tracey Law Firm, Stark and Stark, Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, NastLaw and Levin Fishbein
Sedran & Berman.


PINON MANAGEMENT: Obtains Summary Judgment Ruling in "Perez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA PEREZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PINON MANAGEMENT, INC.,
PONDEROSA CARE COMMUNITIES A LLC d/b/a North Star Community,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-00653-RM-MEH, (D. Col. is
before the Court on Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation,
Plaintiff Patricia Perez's Objections to the Recommendation, as
well as Defendants Pinon Management, Inc. and Ponderosa Care
Communities A LLC d/b/a/North Start Community's (North Star)
Objection to the Recommendation. Both the Recommendation and
objections pertain to Defendants' motion for summary judgment on
Plaintiff's claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Sections 201-219 (2014).

In an order dated November 4, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/jm9xy0from Leagle.com, District Judge Raymond P.
Moore adopts, in part, the Recommendation, overrules, in part,
Plaintiff's objections, overrules Defendants' objection, and
grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The Court holds that Plaintiff has filed to show that Defendants
violated the FLSA by not compensating her to overtime worked.

The court directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in
Defendants' favor.

Patricia Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Meghan W. Martinez --
martinez@mlgrouppc.com -- Martinez Law Group, P.C., Gerald D.
Wells, III -- gwells@sbtklaw.com -- Connolly Wells & Gray, LLP &
Michael James Hynes -- mhynes@hkh-lawfirm.com -- Hynes Keller &
Hernandez, LLC.

Pinon Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Wayne
Volin -- avolin@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Matthew M. Morrison -- mmorrison@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C. & Patrick Richard Scully --
pscully@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.

Ponderosa Care Communities A LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Wayne Volin, Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Matthew M. Morrison,
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Patrick Richard Scully, Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C.


PROMONTORY FINANCIAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Pruden and Sylvia Robertson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the Ohio Rule 23 Class
v. Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00856 (S.D.
Ohio, November 4, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Promontory Financial Group, LLC describes itself as a strategy,
risk management and regulatory compliance consulting firm focusing
primarily on the financial service industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq.
      Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
      MEIZLISH & GRAYSON
      830 Main Street, Suite 999
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 345-4700
      E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net
              drgrayson@fuse.net


PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Publix Asian Mix Due to Undeclared Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Out of an abundance of caution, Publix Super Markets is issuing a
voluntary recall for Publix Asian Mix because the product contains
peanuts that are not declared on the packaging.

The Publix Asian Mix was distributed to all Publix retail
locations in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee
and North Carolina.  Publix Asian Mix is sold in 14 oz. clamshell
containers in the Publix produce department with the UPC 41415-
20286.  The recall includes all sell-by dates between 01/03/15 and
02/03/15.

Publix discovered the undeclared allergen during in-house testing
from the ingredient supplier.  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

"As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted
product has been removed from all store shelves," said Maria
Brous, Publix media and community relations director.  "To date,
there have been no reported cases of illness.  Consumers who have
purchased the products in question may return the product to their
local store for a full refund.  Publix customers with additional
questions may call our Customer Care Department at 1-800-242-1227
or by visiting publix website.

Publix is privately owned and operated by its 171,000 employees,
with 2013 sales of $28.9 billion.  Currently Publix has 1,086
stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and
North Carolina.  The company has been named one of FORTUNE's "100
Best Companies to Work For in America" for 17 consecutive years.
In addition, Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer
service is recognized as tops in the grocery business, most
recently by an American Customer Satisfaction Index survey.  For
more information, visit publix website.


PURITY FIRST: Sued Over Secret Anabolic Steroids in Supplements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Morales, Individually and on Behalf of All Persons
Similarly Situated v. Purity First Health Products, Inc., Mira
Health Products Ltd., Case No. 4:14-cv-00587-MW-CAS (N.D. Fla.,
November 3, 2014) is a consumer rights class action lawsuit
because of the Defendants' alleged false, unfair and deceptive
trade practices, and false and misleading advertising and labeling
practices.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, marketing,
labeling and selling of dietary supplements containing extremely
harmful ingredients, including undisclosed anabolic steroids.  The
Defendants collectively manufacture, distribute, market and sell
Healthy Life Chemistry B-50 capsules, Health Life Chemistry Multi-
Mineral capsules, and Health Life Chemistry Vitamin C capsules
containing Methasterone, Dimethazine, and Dimethyltestosterone.

Purity First is a New York corporation authorized to do business
in the state of Florida.  Purity First maintained its principal
place of business in Farmingdale, New York.  Mira Health is a New
York corporation authorized to do business in Florida.  Mira
Health maintained its principal place of business in East
Farmingdale, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298-4455
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


QUALITY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bonn Biscuits and Cookies
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Quality International Foods Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9345

Affected products: Bonn brand biscuits and cookies with all codes
where sulphites are not declared on the label.


RCI LLC: Bid to Certify Transacting Class in Barton Case Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH A. BARTON, et al., Plaintiff, v. RCI, LLC. Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1O-CV-03657 (PGS), (D. N.J.) is before the Court
on plaintiffs motion for "certification of the transacting class".
Since this is the Plaintiffs' second motion for certification, the
Court must determine whether there are significant changes in
circumstances which warrant a review of the transacting class
certification.

District Judge Peter G. Sheridan, in his memorandum and order
entered November 5, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/u7ezw3from Leagle.com, held that class counsel's
brief and revised expert report show no change of circumstances.
Moreover, there was little, if any, discovery completed between
April 1, 2014 (denial of initial class certification motion) and
May 5, 2014 (the date of the new motion), hence, no new facts were
disclosed. In addition, there were no material updates in the law
which may show a change of circumstances. In fact, Judge Sheridan
said, the expert (Dr. Goedde) employed the same "before and after"
methodology in both class motions, and class counsel relies on the
same named Plaintiffs. In the absence of any material change in
circumstances, the Plaintiff does not meet the standard to certify
a new class.

Accordingly, the motion to certify the transacting class is
denied, Judge Sheridan concluded.

KENNETH A. BARTON, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS --
wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com -- PINILIS HALPERN.

ANGELINE B. DAVIS, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS,
PINILIS HALPERN.

WILLIAM S. FISHMAN, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS,
PINILIS HALPERN.

JUSTIN C. LYON, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS,
PINILIS HALPERN.

KENNETH MAREK, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS,
PINILIS HALPERN & DAVID C. BERMAN, Lower Level.

STEVAN MCCARTHY, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS,
PINILIS HALPERN.

JOSEPH R. SEMIFERO, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS,
PINILIS HALPERN.

MICHAEL SIEMBIDA, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM J. PINILIS,
PINILIS HALPERN.

RCI, LLC, Defendant, represented by DAVID S. SAGER --
dsager@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP.


RMS PROPERTIES: Faces "Duran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gamaliel Duran, Alfredo Molina, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. RMS Properties, Inc., and Roshan
Shoffet, Case No. 1:14-cv-08861 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a full service, vertically
integrated real estate firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAVORY SALADS: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Silva, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Savory Salads, Inc., and George Jameson,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08859 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELVIN LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elias Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Selvin Landscaping Co. and Angela Mares,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08853 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company in Cook
County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIRIUS XM: Can't Arbitrate Toyota Owner's Claims, 9th Cir. Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Sirius XM
Radio Inc. went too far when the satellite radio company quietly
pulled Toyota purchasers into arbitration agreements, the Ninth
Circuit ruled on Nov. 10.  Sirius XM, sued for making unauthorized
telemarketing calls to "customers" whose new Toyotas included the
satellite service, successfully pushed those claims into
arbitration with a 2012 trial court decision.  But the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit returned the case to the
courtroom, ruling named plaintiff Erik Knutson didn't know about
or consent to Sirius XM's arbitration agreement.

Mr. Knutson unknowingly became a Sirius XM customer in 2011, when
he bought a Toyota Tacoma truck and received a free 90-day trial
subscription to the service.  A month later, Mr. Knutson received
a Sirius "welcome kit" that contained the company's arbitration
agreement. The agreement bound Knutson to arbitration unless he
canceled his satellite radio subscription within three business
days.

But Ninth Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson and Marsha Berzon, and
Tenth Circuit Judge Michael Murphy sitting by designation, found
Knutson did not consent to arbitration simply by failing to cancel
his service.  The panel's decision reversed a 2012 ruling by U.S.
District Judge Anthony Battaglia of the Southern District of
California.

"A reasonable person in Knutson's position could not be expected
to understand that purchasing a vehicle from Toyota would
simultaneously bind him or her to any contract with Sirius XM, let
alone one that contained an arbitration provision without any
notice of such terms," Judge Pregerson wrote.

Mr. Knutson's attorney, Costa Mesa lawyer Abbas Kazerounian,
called the verdict "on the money."

Mr. Kazerounian has accused Sirius of obtaining the contact
information of Toyota buyers and then calling them without
permission through its automated telemarketing system.  The
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act could
entitle each plaintiff to up to $1,500 for every call,
Mr. Kazerounian said.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips partner Chad Hummel --
chummel@manatt.com -- who argued on behalf of Sirius XM, was out
of the office on Nov. 10 and did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.  A Sirius XM spokesman did not return an
email.

Mr. Knutson told the lower court he never read the Sirius
agreement that came in the mail because he didn't know it
contained a binding contract.  He found out about the arbitration
clause through his attorneys when he sued Sirius for calling his
cell phone three times without permission.

A party generally cannot escape a contract's provisions by failing
to read the terms before he or she signs, Judge Pregerson wrote.
But this case warrants an exception, he added.  Judge Pregerson
cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's 2012
decision in Schnabel v. Trilegiant, which said a party can't be
held to a contract's arbitration provision if he or she doesn't
know the contract exists.  In that case, plaintiffs made purchases
on the travel website priceline.com and sports memorabilia website
beckett.com, and were separately enrolled in a discount
subscription service and subjected to the service's arbitration
provision.

Mr. Kazerounian said the Nov. 10 opinion will force corporations
to be more transparent with their arbitration agreements.  The
ruling comes at a time when companies are increasingly using the
U.S. Supreme Court's pro-arbitration ruling in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion as a weapon, he said.

"They're going to have to be much more overt with the way that
they communicate those contractual terms," Mr. Kazerounian said,
"so the consumer can have a think about what those terms are."


SNC INVESTMENTS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Pilia-Ortega, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. SNC Investments, LLC d/b/a Xxxpress
Cleaners, and Sameh Nawar, Case No. 1:14-cv-08855 (N.D. Ill.,
November 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate investment company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHWESTERN FURNITURE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jalloh Suliaman and Barbara Tovar, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Southwestern Furniture Stores of Wisconsin,
LLC, d/b/a Ashley Furniture, a foreign corporation, Ashley
Furniture Industries, Inc., DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE
corporations I through V, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-01854 (D.
Nev., November 5, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, or interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate over 300 retail furniture sales
stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew L. Rempfer, Esq.
      Jamie S. Cogburn, Esq.
      COGBURN LAW OFFICES
      2879 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 200
      Henderson, NV 89052
      Telephone: (702) 384-3616
      Facsimile: (702) 943-1936
      E-mail: alr@cogburnlaw.com
              jsc@cogburnlaw.com


STATE COMPENSATION: Faces "Acero" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Acero, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Case No. 3:14-cv-
04928 (N.D. Cal., November 5, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

State Compensation Insurance Fund is a non-profit public
enterprise fund that operates like a mutual insurance carrier and
engages in proprietary activities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harvey Sohnen, Esq.
      Patricia Mary Kelly, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY
      2 Theatre Square, Suite 230
      Orinda, CA 94563-3346
      Telephone: (925) 258-9300
      Facsimile: (925) 258-9315
      E-mail: netlaw@pacbell.net
              patriciakelly@pacbell.net


SUPER YOO: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Maldonado, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Super Yoo Cleaners, Inc. and Hong S. Yoo,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08851 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing laundry
and dry cleaning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Hooper" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------
Luke Hooper, Charlotte Whitehead, and Melinda Tingle, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08565 (C.D. Cal., November
4, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags
manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle
occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode
and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris
and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
      Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
              twalburg@lchb.com
              pgnguyen@lchb.com

         - and -

      Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
      Zachary Wool, Esq.
      BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
      701 Poydras St., Suite 3650
      New Orleans, LA 70139
      Telephone: (504) 524-3300
      Facsimile: (504) 524-3313
      E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com
              zwool@bkc-law.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Daniel Arnold, Jr., on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-03556 (N.D. Ga., November 4, 2014), alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Timothy Morrison, Esq.
      Jay F. Hirsch, Esq.
      Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq.
      Caroline G. McGlamry, Esq.
      POPE, McGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON & NORWOOD, P.C.
      Lenox Overlook, Suite 300, 3391 Peachtree Road, N.E.,
      P.O.  Box 191625 (31119-1625)
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Telephone: (404) 523-7706
      Facsimile: (404) 524-1648
      E-mail: efile@pmkm.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Willingham, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS P. WILLINGHAM, P.C.
      3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 330
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205) 298-1011
      Facsimile:  (205) 298-1012
      E-mail: tom@tpwpc.com


TAKATA CORP: May Face Criminal Charges Over Air Bag Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., on Nov. 7 pushed the U.S. Department
of Justice to think about filing criminal charges against Takata
Corp. after a media report indicated that the Japanese
manufacturer intentionally concealed information about a safety
defect with its air bags.

Sen. McCaskill, the chairwoman of the Senate's consumer protection
panel, said in a written statement that Takata "needs to be held
fully accountable, not just with financial penalties, but also
with criminal charges" if the company knew about a problem with
its air bags in 2004 and didn't inform U.S. safety regulators at
the time, as The New York Times reported on Nov. 6.  Takata, which
has seen recalls on its air bags fluctuate to more than 50 vehicle
models in October, already is facing class action lawsuits.

"I trust that safety regulators and Justice Department officials
are looking closely at these accusations and considering every
tool available under the law," said Sen. McCaskill, who has been a
leading critic of General Motors Co. and its general counsel over
the automaker's handling of an ignition-switch defect.
Affiliate publication Corporate Counsel has more.


TAKATA CORP: Plaintiffs Move to Consolidate Airbag Defect Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers have moved to coordinate more than a dozen
lawsuits against airbag manufacturer Takata Corp. and six
automakers over an airbag defect that prompted recalls of 7.8
million U.S. cars and trucks.

Plaintiffs lawyers filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate all pretrial hearings and
transfer the cases to U.S. District Judge James King in the
Southern District of Florida.  He is overseeing one of the first
class actions filed.

"He's recognized the case involves matters of public safety, and
appears to be willing to work on an expedited schedule," said
Lawrence Sucharow -- lsucharow@labaton.com -- chairman of New
York's Labaton Sucharow, one of three firms that filed the motion
on Nov. 3.  "He has indicated he's ready and available to the
litigants to hear the matters."

Meanwhile, Takata and Honda Motor Co. Ltd., the automaker named in
most of the suits, have lawyered up.  And a class action filed on
Nov. 7 alleged that Takata and Honda conspired to cover up the
defect since 2004, when an airbag in a Honda Accord in Alabama
exploded, injuring the driver.

Takata has come under scrutiny from federal regulators and
Congress over the defect, which could cause its airbags to
explode, pelting drivers with metal shrapnel.  Ten auto companies
have issued recalls, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration expanded the list of vehicles last month, urging
drivers "to act immediately" to get their cars fixed.  On Nov. 10,
both Honda and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. expanded their recalls.
So far, 15 lawsuits had been filed against Takata in federal
courts in California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan and
Pennsylvania.  Some cases also name as defendants Honda, Nissan,
Bayerische Motoren Werke A.G. (BMW), Chrysler Group LLC, Subaru,
the automotive division of Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd., or Toyota
Motor Corp.

Most are nationwide class actions filed on behalf of consumers
seeking economic damages.

Labaton Sucharow, which along with Dallas-based Baron & Budd and
Podhurst Orseck of Miami filed the coordination motion, brought
the first class actions against Takata on Oct. 27.  Responses are
due Nov. 26.

In the Florida case, the three firms have asked King for expedited
discovery.  They assert that the recalls -- limited to hot and
humid regions -- and the defendants' failure to provide adequate
parts or rental cars to customers have posed a public safety risk.
"We're looking for all documents being turned over to any
regulatory authority that doesn't violate any privilege," Sucharow
said.

The defendants are set to respond on Nov. 17; the next hearing in
the case is Dec. 8.

According to plaintiffs lawyers, Takata has brought in David
Bernick, a partner at Dechert in New York, in the litigation.
Honda identified its lawyers in the Florida case as Armando Rubio
-- armando.rubio@csklegal.com -- and Thomas Scott --
thomas.scott@csklegal.com -- partners at Cole, Scott & Kissane in
Miami, and Michael Mallow -- mmallow@loeb.com -- a partner at Loeb
& Loeb in Los Angeles.  None responded to requests for comment.

The new class action alleges that Takata ordered technicians to
destroy video footage and computer backup files of test results
that showed cracks in steel canisters housing the airbag system.
The allegations are based on emails that have been made public,
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, who brought the case, but they also echo a Nov. 6
report in The New York Times that prompted U.S. senators to demand
the Justice Department open a criminal investigation.

As for the coordination effort, Mr. Berman, co-lead counsel of the
pending ignition-switch cases against General Motors Co. and
leader of the team that obtained a $1.6 billion settlement with
Toyota over sudden-acceleration claims, said he plans to oppose
the Florida venue, noting that Honda's U.S. subsidiary is
headquartered in California.

"Certainly, there are many more accidents because of humidity, but
the problem exists nationwide," said Berman, who was unsuccessful
in moving to California the ignition-switch litigation, now
numbering more than 100 cases in the Southern District of
New York.

The MDL panel's next hearings are scheduled for Dec. 4 in
Charleston, S.C., and Jan. 29 in Miami.


TIME MOVING & STORAGE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lax, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Time Moving & Storage, Inc., The Time Record Storage
Company, LLC, John Kevin Gilgan, and James Dowse, Case No. 1:14-
cv-08781 (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a record storage company in New
York, with over 1 million square feet of record storage capacity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Arsenio David Rodriguez, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              arodriguez@fslawfirm.com


TRACY'S TREASURES: Trial Court Ruling Upheld in Part
----------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division
reversed in part and affirmed in part a trial court ruling entered
in CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-
Appellant, v. TRACY'S TREASURES, INC., and PAUL IDLAS, Defendants-
Appellants and Cross-Appellees, NO. 1-12-3339. 2014 IL App (1st)
123339.

This insurance declaratory action raises issues regarding: (1)
whether coverage is available for an underlying class action
alleging claims for unsolicited faxes in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1) (2006)); (2) the reasonableness of a settlement in the
underlying action between the insured and the underlying
plaintiffs, which those parties stipulated would be paid from the
proceeds of the insurance policies; and (3) whether the "buyout"
of coverage under the insurance policies, which resulted from a
settlement of a prior class action against the insured, precludes
claims under the "advertising injury" coverage of these policies.

"Due to an intervening change in the law that formed the basis of
the trial court's ruling in favor of plaintiff and cross-
appellant, Central Mutual Insurance Company, we must reverse,"
ruled the Illinois Appellate Court.  "We affirm the other rulings
appealed by Central and remand for further proceedings."

A copy of the Appellate Court's November 5, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/nJrhUefrom Leagle.com.


TRAVELLOOGA LLC: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Billie Jones, and all others similarly situated individuals v.
Travellooga LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Richard
Franken, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24131 (S.D. Fla., November
5, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a travel agency in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITE HERE: Illegally Deducts Seasonal Workers' Salary, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Knauf and Richard Bishop, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Unite Here Local 100, The
Hotel Employees And Restaurant Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO, and Bam Management, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-06915 (D.N.J.,
November 5, 2014), alleges that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally deducted sums that were greater than allowed by
existing law from seasonal, part-time workers.

Unite Here Local 100 is a Union for food service and restaurant
workers in the New York area.

Bam Management, LLC owns and operates a food service management
company in New Jersey.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union
is a labor union representing workers of the hospitality industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean F. Byrnes, Esq.
      BYRNES, O'HERN AND HEUGEL LLC
      28 Leroy Place
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (732) 219-7711
      E-mail: sbyrnes@verizon.net


UNITED NATURAL: Recalls Asian 7 Rice Cracker Mix Due to Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Trading LLC dba/ Woodstock Farms Manufacturing,
Edison, New Jersey are recalling 22lb. bulk cases only (Lot#
YOUI03) and Market Basket 12oz. tubs only (Lot# 14248) because
they may contain undeclared peanuts.  People who have allergies to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The 22lb. bulk cases of Asian 7 Rice Cracker Mix, Lot # YOUI03
were supplied to Woodstock Farms from Suzhou Youi Foods Co., Ltd,
No. 15 Dongyuan RD, Jinting Town, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province,
China and distributed in Florida and Wisconsin.

The Market Basket 12oz. tubs of Asian 7 Rice Cracker Mix, Lot#
14248, Best By 9/5/15, UPC# 04970540898 were supplied to Woodstock
Farms from Suzhou Youi Foods Co., Ltd and distributed in the MA,
VT, CT, RI, ME.

No illnesses or consumer complaints have been reported to date in
connection with this problem.

The recall was initiated after a customer reported to us that they
found a peanut fragment in the closed case of product at their
facility during re-packing.  Upon investigation it was discovered
that the 22lb. original bulk cartons supplied to United Natural
from Suzhou Youi Foods Co., Ltd had contained a peanut fragment.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by
failure to do proper allergen cleaning and training of personnel
at Suzhou Youi Foods Co., Ltd.

Consumers who have purchased the 12oz.  Market Basket tubs are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company Monday - Friday
9AM - 5PM EST at 800-526-4349.


UNITED STATES: Has 90 Days to Adopt Changes in Immigration Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge gave the Obama administration 90 days to adopt
policy changes to provide legal representation to immigration
detainees with severe mental disabilities in three states.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ordered federal immigration
officials to screen immigrants for mental disorders as soon as
they are taken into custody.  The Oct. 29 order also requires
officials to share mental health documentation with immigration
judges, and ensure that detainees are competent to stand before a
judge.

After an initial screening, detainees must be assessed by a
licensed psychiatrist or other healthcare worker within 14 days,
Gee wrote in her order further implementing a permanent
injunction.

A class of immigrants with serious mental disabilities sued the
government in 2011, claiming they sometimes had been left to rot
in detention facilities for years without counsel.

Gee ruled last year in that case, Jose Antonio Franco Gonzalez et
al. v. Eric H. Holder, that the United States is obligated under
the Rehabilitation Act to provide mentally disabled immigrant
detainees in California, Arizona and Washington with attorneys.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California at the
time touted the ruling as "historic" and a "landmark," calling it
the first time a court had ever recognized immigrants' rights to
legal counsel in immigration proceedings.

After Gee's ruling, Franco-Gonzalez's attorney, Carmen Iguina with
the ACLU, said:

"The court in Franco-Gonzalez has issued yet another historic
order in the case, this time establishing a comprehensive
screening and competency determination system in the immigration
detention centers and courts throughout Washington, California and
Arizona."

In her ruling last year, Gee rejected the government's contention
that providing counsel would place an "undue financial burden,"
and result in a "fundamental alteration of the immigration court
system."

Law students and law graduates who had not yet been admitted to
the bar could represent the class, Gee wrote.  The judge also
found that a requirement of representation was not inimical to the
Immigration and Nationality Act.

The ACLU said that more than half of defendants in immigration
courts, "including 84 percent of detained individuals," have to
argue their cases without representation.  Of the 34,000
immigrants detained every day, 1,000 are mentally disabled, the
civil rights group said, citing government statistics.

Franco-Gonzalez, 33, functions "at the cognitive level of a
child," the ACLU said.

"In April 2005, after serving a sentence in state criminal
custody, Jose was transferred to immigration detention," the ACLU
said.  "A few months later, an immigration judge ordered the
closure of his case, citing the finding by a government
psychiatrist that Jose lacked even the most basic understanding of
his immigration proceedings."

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Attorney General Eric
Holder and the Executive Office of Immigration Review have 90 days
from the court's Oct. 29 order to implement the policy changes.

The case is Jose Antonio Franco-Gonzalez, et al. v. Eric H.
Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-02211-DMG-
DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


UNIVERSAL IMPEX: Recalls Cool Runnings Jamaican Style Curry Powder
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 31, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Peanut, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Universal Impex Corp.
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario, Possibly National,
                          Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9353

Universal Impex Corp. is recalling Cool Runnings brand Jamaican
Style Curry Powder from the marketplace because it may contain
peanut and almond which are not declared on the label.  People
with an allergy to peanut or almond should not consume the
recalled product.

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

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

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

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

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

Affected products: 500 g. Cool Runnings Jamaican Style Curry
Powder with 140626 code


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Misclassified Class as Unpaid Interns, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Stokely, III, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated who were employed by Universal Music
Group, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Publishing
Inc., Universal Music Group Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Polygram Holding,
Inc., and/or any other subsidiaries or entities affiliated with or
controlled by Universal Music Group, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc.,
Universal Music Publishing Inc, Universal Music Group Holdings,
Inc. v. Universal Music Group, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc.,
Universal Music Publishing Inc., Universal Music Group Holdings,
Inc. d/b/a Polygram Holding, Inc., and/or any other subsidiaries
or entities affiliated with or controlled by Universal Music
Group, Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Universal Music Publishing Inc,
Universal Music Group Holdings, Inc., Case No. 160896/2014 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty., November 3, 2014) is brought pursuant to
New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
persons, who are presently or were formerly employed by the
Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges that although the Defendants
misclassified him and other members of the putative class as
unpaid interns, he is a covered employee within the meaning of the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants are foreign business corporations organized and
existing under the laws of Delaware and authorized to do business
in New York, with their principal place of business located in
Santa Monica, California.  The Defendants are engaged in the
business of recorded music, music publishing and merchandising.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  lcoyle@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


VELDOS LLC: Faces "Politi" Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Politi, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Veldos, LLC and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 14-cv-06926 (D.N.J.,
November 5, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Veldos, LLC provides outsourced solutions that improve cash flow
for many of the world's leading companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
      1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Telephone: (732) 545-7900
      Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
      E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net

         - and -

      Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. McGINN
      75 Raritan Ave. - Suite 220
      Highland Park, NJ 08904
      Telephone: (732) 937-9400
      Facsimile: (800) 931-2408


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Has Invade Class Members' Privacy, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul M. Stelmachers, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Verifone Systems, Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-04912 (N.D. Cal., November 5, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant invaded the privacy of the Plaintiff and other class
members, specifically by printing their protected, private
information on receipts and permitting the Defendant's employees
access to that private information.

Verifone Systems, Inc. provides technology for electronic payment
transactions and value-added services at the point-of-sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chuck Marshall, Esq.
      MARSHALL LAW FIRM
      2121 N. California Blvd., Ste. 290
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 575-7105
      Facsimile: (855) 575-7105
      E-mail: cdm@marshall-law-firm.com

         - and -

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      Richard J. Doherty, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
              rich@bockhatchllc.com


VIEJA AZTECA: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Vargas, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Vieja Azteca Bakery, Inc. and Alfredo
Sanchez, Case No. 1:14-cv-08850 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL: Class Cert. in "Vallare" Case Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In GLORIA VALLARE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL CENTER, LLC AND
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE AND INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE CROSS
AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, NO. 14-261, Defendant VPMC appeals
the trial court's certification of a class action in this lawsuit
involving allegations of unlawful billing practices.

In its appeal, VPMC asserts, among other things, that the trial
court erred in granting Plaintiff's motion to certify class
because she is not an appropriate class representative because she
fits only within the definition of one of the two subclasses
certified by the court and because she cannot represent
individuals treated at a completely different hospital under
completely different ownership. VPMC further asserts that the
trial court erred in certifying the class where Plaintiff failed
to establish numerosity and predominance.

The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit, on November 5,
2014, held that it found no error in the trial court's granting of
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in this case.  The Appeals
Court, therefore, affirmed the trial court's certification of the
class but amended the definition to delete the subclasses. As
amended, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

The class is defined as: All persons from January 1, 2004[,] to
June 18, 2013[,] who received "covered health care services" as
defined by La. R.S. 22:1874(8) provided by Eunice Community
Medical Center/Acadian Medical Center and all persons since April
1, 2010[,] who received "covered health care services" as defined
by La.R.S. 22:1874(8) from VILLE PLATTE MEDICAL CENTER and its
predecessors ("VPMC["]); and at the time of the covered health
care services had "Health Insurance Coverage" as defined by La.
R.S. 22:1874(18); and from whom VPMC attempted to recover any
amount in excess of the "contracted reimbursement rate" as defined
by La. R.S. 22:1874(7) and/or who paid VPMC in any manner
including but not limited to liability insurance proceeds and/or
from proceeds of a settlement or judgment, an amount in excess of
the "contracted reimbursement rate" either directly and/or through
their attorney and/or through a liability insurance carrier and/or
any third party.

A copy of the Louisiana Appeals Court ruling is available at
http://is.gd/zXmt2lfrom Leagle.com.


Kurt S. Blankenship -- kblankenship@bluewilliams.com -- Robert I.
Baudouin -- rbaudouin@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, L.L.P.,
3421 North Causeway Blvd., Ninth Floor, Metairie, LA 70002, (504)
830-4938, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Ville Platte Medical
Center.

Scott Bickford -- srb@mbfirm.com -- Lawrence J. Centola, III --
lcentola@mbfirm.com -- Jason Z. Landry -- jzl@mbfirm.com --
Martzell & Bickford, 338 Lafayette Street, New Orleans, LA 70130,
(504) 581-9065, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Gloria Vallare.

Derrick G. Earles, The Laborde Law Firm, 306 North Washington
Street, Marksville, LA 71351, (318) 777-7777, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Gloria Vallare.

J. Lee Hoffoss, Jr. -- jlhoffoss@hdinjurylaw.com -- Claude P.
Devall -- tclaudedevall@yahoo.com -- Donald W. McKnight --
don@nhdlawyers.com -- Hoffoss Devall, LLC, 3205 Ryan Street, Lake
Charles, LA 70601, (337) 433-2053, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:
Gloria Vallare.

J. Clemille Simon, Simon Law Offices, 122 Representative Row,
Lafayette, LA 70505, (337) 232-2000, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE: Gloria Vallare.

Charles A. O'Brien, 5525 Reitz Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70890,
(225) 295-2454, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: Blue Cross and Blue Shield.


VIRGINIA: W.D. Va. Court Dismisses "Souter" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Julia E. Souter filed a complaint against the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Warren County General District Judge Dale M. Houff, and
attorney J. Daniel Pond, III, seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Souter's complaint arises out of a 2010 Warren County
General District Court case filed against her by Apple Mountain
Lake South Property Owners Association for unpaid maintenance fees
and late fees dating back to 1991. Judgment was entered against
Souter on May 21, 2010 in the amount of $4,498.58, plus 6%
interest, $58 in costs, and $2,500 in attorney's fees. Souter
claims that in the course of this proceeding she was denied a jury
trial, denied the right to remove her case to the Warren County
Circuit Court, and denied appointment of counsel, all in violation
of her constitutional rights. She further claims Judge Houff
"added $1,000 additional Attorney fee[s]" as a "punitive
punishment" and set a $7,000 appeal bond that essentially locked
the case "into a non-appealable status." By way of remedy, Souter
asks for the following: an order requiring the Commonwealth to pay
the judgment, fees and costs assessed against her in the Warren
County General District Court; a declaration voiding as
unconstitutional "the 2007 Changes in the Rules of the Supreme
Court of Virginia that removed the right of a defendant or
plaintiff to move their case from the General District Courts of
Virginia to the Circuit Courts;" damages as a result of Judge
Houff's "actions and Inactions;" an additional $10,000,000 in
damages from the Commonwealth; and an order mandating that the
Commonwealth require recording devices in all courtrooms. Souter
also requests that the court certify her complaint as a class
action. Souter moves to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(1).

District Judge Michael F. Urbanski, in a memorandum opinion
entered November 4, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/MatsCQfrom Leagle.com, held that the court will
grant Souter's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, after
reviewing the complaint, the court concludes that the action must
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B).

Judge Urbanski said Souter's complaint fails to state a legal
claim upon which relief may be granted. She also seeks monetary
relief against the Commonwealth and Judge Houff, both of whom are
immune from such relief. The matter will be dismissed and stricken
from the active docket of the court, he concluded.

The case is JULIA E. SOUTER, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-00054,
(W.D. Va.).

Julia E. Souter, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


W&E COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Walker, on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated v. W&E Communications, Inc., and William S.
Perez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08787 (N.D. Ill., November
4, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.

W&E Communications, Inc. is a communication service company
located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WBM INC: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Beltran-Perez, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. W.B.M., Inc. and Boris Raslin,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08852 (N.D. Ill., November 5, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a medium size precision CNC machine
shop that provides contract machining services for anyone in the
market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Dorfman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled LISETTE DORFMAN, as
Executrix for the Estate of LINTON DORFMAN, and LISETTE DORFMAN,
Individually, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190214/13, MOTION SEQ. 007 (N.Y. Sup.),
defendant United Conveyor Corporation moves for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it
on the ground that the plaintiffs' decedent Linton Dorfman failed
to identify a UCC product as a source of his alleged asbestos
exposure.

In a decision and order dated Oct. 23, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied UCC's
motion, holding that documentary evidence plainly shows that the
Defendant's asbestos-containing equipment was installed at the 4th
and 5th boiler units of Con Edison's Astoria powerhouse during the
period when Mr. Dorfman was working on the location.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/TeOgmHfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Grants Bid to Dismiss PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court in Illinois granted several defendants'
motions to dismiss several counts in an asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit after the plaintiff failed to respond to the
dismissal motions and failed to alter the language of his
complaint regarding the counts subject to the dismissal motions.

The case is GERALD D. McALVEY, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS COPCO
COMPRESSORS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-064-SMY-
PMF (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the Oct. 31, 2014,
memorandum and order penned by Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois is available
at http://is.gd/wrd6oafrom Leagle.com.

Gerald D McAlvey, Plaintiff, represented by Ben A. Vinson, Jr.,
Vinson Law & Zane T. Cagle, Cagle Law Firm, LLC.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Brian D. Zeringer, Esq. --
brian.zeringer@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP, Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al..

Carrier Corp, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC.

CBS Corporaton, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq. -- ddonahue@foleymansfield.com -- Foley
& Mansfield, PLLP, Michael R. Dauphin, Esq. --
mdauphin@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Robert
S. Sanderson, Esq., at Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

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

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel W. McGrath, Esq. --
dmcgrath@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson, Dennis J.
Graber, Esq. -- dgraber@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw &
Culbertson, Kevin T. Dawson, Esq. -- idavis-
ossuetta@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D.
Bauman, Esq. -- mbauman@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw &
Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Esq. -- nrice@hinshawlaw.com -- at
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Esq. --
tsondag@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

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

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel M. Finer, Esq. -- dfiner@smsm.com -- at Segal,
McCambridge et al., Steven A. Hart, Esq. -- shart@smsm.com -- at
Segal, McCambridge et al., Bradley R. Bultman, Esq. --
bbultman@smsm.com -- at Segal, McCambridge et al. & Kyle Pozan,
Esq. -- kpozan@smsm.com -- at Segal, McCambridge et al..

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

Georgia-Pacific L.L.C., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl
J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.
Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli
PC, Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Kathleen Ann
Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey, Esq. --
bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- at Leader & Berkon LLP & Keith B.
Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

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

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

John Crane Inc, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Sean P. Fergus, Esq. -- sean@otmblaw.com -- at
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Johnson Controls, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP, Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq. -- cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com
-- at Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Esq. --
lbeasley@ilmoattorneys.com -- at Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Owens- Illinois, Inc, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Brian O'Connor Watson, Esq. -- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- at
Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Esq. --
ecasmere@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP & Matthew J.
Fischer, Esq. -- mfischer@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff, Hardin et
al..

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. --
J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq. --
Justis.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Matthew J. Morris, Esq. --
Matthew.Morris@lewisbrisbois.com -- at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

Warren Pumps, L.L.C., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.
& Bobbie Rae Bailey, Leader & Berkon LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Partially Grants Bid to Junk PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos personal injury action styled JUDITH SHTOCKHAMMER,
Plaintiff, v. 29TH STREET HOTEL ACQUISITION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190393/13, MOTION SEQ. 001 (N.Y. Sup.),
defendants 29th Street Hotel Acquisition, LLC, 29th Street Hotel
Mezz, LLC, 29th Street Hotel Member, LLC, Chetrit Group, LLC, and
JCMC 29th Street LLC, move to dismiss the complaint as against
them for failure to state a cause of action and on the basis of
documentary evidence.

In a decision and order dated Oct. 24, 2014, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted in part and
denied in part the motion.  Judge Heitler found that the complaint
states a cognizable cause of action against Acquisition sounding
in common law negligence and premises liability, thus the
Plaintiff's claims against Acquisition must survive.  Judge
Heitler granted the motion by Chetrit as the Defendants have
alleged, and the Plaintiff does not dispute, that Chetrit has
never held any interest whatsoever in the New York property where
the plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos.  As to the
remaining Defendants, Judge Heitler denied their motion without
prejudice to renew pending discovery.

A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/6bCY0cfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Review "Boyer" Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
In opinions dated August 22, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin granted motions to dismiss filed by
defendants Weyerhaeuser Company and Owens-Illinois Inc. in the
lawsuits styled MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. JANET
PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the
Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M
COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS
INC., Defendants. VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. ROGER SEEHAFER and
JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS-
ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. WESLEY F. SYDOW and THERESA SYDOW,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NOS. 14-
CV-286-WMC, 14-CV-186-WMC, 14-CV-147-WMC, 14-CV-143-WMC, 14-CV-
161-WMC, 14-CV-219-WMC (W.D. Wis.), all of which arise out of the
plaintiffs' alleged injuries from asbestos exposure.

In that opinion, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims
against Weyerhauser Company, finding them barred by the exclusive
remedy provision of the Wisconsin Workers Compensation Act, Wis.
Stat. Section 103.03(2); and (2) dismissed all claims based on
plaintiffs' patent licensing theory against Owens-Illinois Inc.,
finding them meritless as a matter of law.  The court further
found that any proposed amendment of the Plaintiff's claims
against Weyerhaeuser and Owens-Illinois based on the patent
licensing theory would be futile, but allowed the plaintiffs to
re-plead in good faith any claims against Owens-Illinois premised
on its sale of asbestos door cores to which the individual
plaintiffs were exposed.

The Plaintiffs now move for reconsideration of that opinion and
order.  In an opinion and order dated Nov. 4, 2014, Judge William
M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin denied the Plaintiffs' motions because they either (1)
rehash arguments that were previously raised and rejected in their
original oppositions to defendants' motions to dismiss, or (2)
raise new arguments that could have been asserted in their
oppositions and have since been waived, but, even if considered,
do not warrant reconsideration.

A full-text copy of Judge Conley's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/0jC2Offrom Leagle.com.

Virginia Prust, Individually and as Special Administrator on
behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, represented by
Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., James
Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G.
McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd..

3M Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Emily
Zapotocny, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendant,
represented by William P. Croke, von Briesen & Roper, s.c..
Owens-Illinois Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere,
Schiff Hardin, LLP, Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP &
Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Junks Bystander Claims in PI Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit alleges that decedent, Michael Comardelle, was "exposed
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products manufactured,
distributed, and sold" by several companies during the course of
his employment from 1963 through 1979.  The Plaintiffs allege that
as a result of these exposures to toxic substances, including
asbestos, Comardelle contracted cancer, mesothelioma, and lung
cancer, and died from these diseases.  Among a myriad of other
claims, the plaintiffs assert that they "are entitled to damages
for the ... mental pain and anguish which [they] endured from
watching the suffering and death of their husband and father."

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
these damages under Louisiana law and filed motions for partial
summary judgment regarding the Plaintiffs' claims for bystander
damages.

In a Nov. 3, 2014, order and reasons, Judge Lance M. Africk of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
the Defendants' motions, holding, among other things, that the
Plaintiffs have not alleged or presented evidence that they were
present when Comardelle was exposed to asbestos or that they came
upon the scene of his exposure soon thereafter.  Judge Africk
found that the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the first requirement
laid out in Lejeune, 556 So. 2d at 570, and, accordingly, ruled
that they are not entitled to bystander damages under Louisiana
law.

The case is MICHAEL COMARDELLE, v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, ET AL., Section I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-6555 (E.D. La.).
A full-text copy of Judge Africk's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/TQEoIbfrom Leagle.com.

Brenda Perez Comardelle, Melissa Comardelle, and Pamela
Comardelle, Plaintiffs, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M.
Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Melissa M. Desormeaux, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Cajun Company Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by James L. Pate, NeunerPate & Jason T. Reed, NeunerPate.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin,
Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C., Rebecca
Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C., Rose Marie Wade, Evert Weathersby
Houff & William Davis Harvard, Evert Weathersby Houff.

Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Tim Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Jason K. Elam, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy,
LLP, Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Tim
Gray, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Forrest Ren
Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Jason K. Elam,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Troy Nathan Bell,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Eagle Inc, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP,Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin,
Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K.
Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca
Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M.
Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Erik Nadolink, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., John M. Fitzpatrick,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC
& Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP,Christopher
Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Laura M.
Gillen, Blue Williams, LLP & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis.

J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Darren M.
Guillot, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
and Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James
R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Louis Oliver
Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
&Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

P2S LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by John Dennis
Person, Esq. -- jperson@aarongianna.com -- at Aaron & Gianna,
PLC, Lee M. Rudin, Esq. -- lrudin@aarongianna.com -- at Aaron &
Gianna, PLC & Lezly L. Petrovich, Esq. --
lpetrovich@aarongianna.com -- at Aaron & Gianna, PLC.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC
&Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

Pharmacia LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Darryl J. Foster, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC,David
Edmund Redmann, Jr., Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC
& Kimberly C. Delk, Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC.

Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz &
Cougill,Brandy Gonzales Scurria, Brandy Gonzales Legal Services,
LLC, Diane Sweezer Davis, Funderburk Finderburk Courtois,
LLP, Jamie M Zanovec, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette
Seraile-Riggins, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac,
Willingham Fultz & Cougill.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale, David C Bach, Hailey, McNamara, Hall,
Larmann & Papale LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara,
Hall, Larmann & Papale.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu,
Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator,
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier
Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi
T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga,
APLLC, Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator
& Holinga, APLLC, David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Bienvenu, Bonnecaze,
Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Anthony Joseph Lascaro, Bienvenu,
Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, John Allain Viator,
Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Katie Dampier
Chabert, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC, Lexi
T. Holinga, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator & Holinga, APLLC
& Tam Catherine Bourgeois, Bienvenu, Bonnecaze, Foco, Viator &
Holinga, APLLC.

Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Court Remands Claims in 4 PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued an order dated Nov. 3, 2014,
remanding claims, except for severed damages claims, asserted in
four cases in IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO.
VI), MDL NO. 875.  The four cases were remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.  A full-text
copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/SbMTU1from Leagle.com.

Dianne Jacobs, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd.

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP,
Jennifer Marie Studebaker, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy &
Matthew John Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Rapid American Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Russell
Feldmann, Menn Law Firm, Ltd..

Weyerhauser Company, Defendant, represented by Mark S. DesRochers,
DesRochers Law Offices, LLC.

Rapid American Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Mark
Russell Feldmann, Menn Law Firm, Ltd..

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants 32 Bids to Dismiss MARDOC Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order dated Nov. 3,
2014, granting 32 motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction lawsuits originally filed in the District Court of
the Virgin Islands and were later consolidated as part of the
maritime multidistrict asbestos litigation.

Judge Robreno in granting the motions to dismiss found that the
Plaintiffs do not allege, and cannot allege, that the Pennsylvania
Court has specific jurisdiction (based on the long-arm statute or
constitutional due process) over any of the defendants as their
claims do not arise from the defendants' activities in the Virgin
Islands.  The plaintiffs, according to Judge Robreno, also have
failed to adequately plead facts which would allow the
Pennsylvania Court to exercise general jurisdiction over any of
these defendants under the restrictive holding in Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 571 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 746, 758 (2014).

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (No. VI)
COWART, ET AL., v. VARIOUS DEFENDANTS, CONSOLIDATED UNDER MDL
DOCKET NO. 875 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text copy of the Nov. 3 Order
is available at http://is.gd/H027Nkfrom Leagle.com.  The Nov. 23
order accompanies a memorandum Judge Robreno issued on Oct. 23, a
full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/7udehffrom
Leagle.com.

MARVIN L. EATON, Plaintiff, represented by THOMAS H. HART, III,
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS H. HART III, DUANE C. MARSDEN, JAQUES
ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C., JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN
DAVID HURST, MOTLEY RICE LLC.

AMOCO SHIPPING CO., Defendant, represented by WAYNE A. MARVEL,
MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON PA.

JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE, INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN H.
DANIELS, MCMAHON DEGULIS LLP.

UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by HAROLD W.
HENDERSON, THOMPSON, HINE LLP & RICHARD C. BINZLEY, THOMPSON, HINE
AND FLORY.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Suit Enlarged
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated Nov. 6, 2014, ruled that the time
to perfect appeal in the asbestos-related lawsuit styled N RE: NEW
YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to GARBUTT, v. A.O. SMITH
WATER PRODUCTS CO., MOTION NO. M-4834 (N.Y. App. Div.), is
enlarged to the March 2015 Term.  A full-text copy of the Decision
is available at http://is.gd/fk5x8bfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in "Lipe" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1994, decedent Ross Iddings Lipe was diagnosed with
asbestosis.  He filed an occupational disease claim with the Full
Commission of the North Carolina Industrial Commission.  In 1999,
the Commission found that the Decedent's asbestosis was caused by
his exposure to asbestos during his period of employment with
Starr Davis Company.  The Commission awarded the Decedent benefits
of $404.24 per week, which was based on 66-2/3% of what his
average weekly wages were when he retired in 1991, rather than
based on his average weekly wages at the time he was diagnosed
with asbestosis in 1994 -- which would have been zero, as Decedent
had been out of work since July 1991.  The Court of Appeals of
North Carolina affirmed the Full Commission's 24 August 1999
opinion and award in Lipe v. Starr Davis Co., 142 N.C. App. 213,
543 S.E.2d 533, 2001 N.C. App. LEXIS 52 (unpublished), disc.
review denied, 354 N.C. 363, 556 S.E.2d 303 (2001).

In February 2010, the Decedent was diagnosed with lung cancer.  He
died less than two months later, as a result of his lung cancer.
The Decedent's widow, Shirley Lipe, thereafter filed a claim with
the Commission seeking death benefits based on the Decedent's
development of lung cancer through his asbestos exposure while
working at SDC.  The Full Commission found that the Decedent's
lung cancer was caused by the same exposure to asbestos that
caused his asbestosis and awarded the Plaintiff benefits equal to
66-2/3% of Decedent's average weekly wages for 400 weeks.  The
Commission determined Decedent's average weekly wages to be
$606.36, articulating two alternative bases for its decision: (1)
that the question concerning the manner of calculating the
Decedent's average weekly wages had been previously raised and
addressed in its 24 August 1999 opinion and award, and Travelers
Casualty & Surety, as defendant, was thus collaterally estopped
from re-litigating the issue; and (2) that, even if collateral
estoppel did not apply, the fifth of the five permissible methods
of calculating average weekly wages under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section
97-2(5) permitted the Full Commission to reach the same result --
specifically, to calculate the Decedent's average weekly wages
based on his last full year of employment with SDC.  From this
opinion and award, the Defendant appeals.

In an opinion dated Nov. 4, 2014, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals affirmed the Commission's opinion and award after
determining that the Commission's findings are sufficient to
support its calculation method and, moreover, that the Commission
correctly determined the Decedent's average weekly wages to be
$606.36, yielding a corresponding weekly compensation rate of
$404.24.  The Court of Appeals said that based on the facts of
this case -- where (1) the Decedent was exposed to asbestos during
his career at SDC, (2) he retired from SDC for a reason unrelated
to any injury suffered at work, (3) after retirement he was
diagnosed with lung cancer directly caused by his exposure to
asbestos during his career at SDC, and (4) where he dies as a
result of the lung cancer -- the Full Commission did not err in
calculating the Decedent's average weekly wages based on the wages
during the last year of employment at SDC rather than based on the
statutory minimum.

The case is SHIRLEY LIPE, Widow and Executrix of the Estate of
ROSS IDDINGS LIPE, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff, v. STARR DAVIS
COMPANY, INC., Employer, TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY (as Successor
to AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY), Carrier, Defendants, NO.
COA14-90-2 (N.C. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/WccBdXfrom Leagle.com.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Michael B. Pross, for Plaintiff.

Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, by Hatcher Kincheloe,
Esq. -- hkincheloe@hedrickgardner.com -- Sarah P. Cronin, Esq. --
scronin@hedrickgardner.com -- and M. Duane Jones, Esq. --
djones@hedrickgardner.com -- for Defendant Travelers Casualty &
Surety.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. High Ct. Upholds MSA Insurance Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
North River Insurance Company challenges the Delaware Court of
Chancery's denial of its request for permanent injunctive relief.
The multi-forum litigation concerns policies issued by North River
to a safety products company, Mine Safety Appliances Company.
North River issued 13 policies to MSA covering periods from
August 28, 1972 through April 1, 1986.  MSA is defending against
thousands of personal injury claims, including asbestosis,
silicosis and pneumoconiosis, allegedly caused by defects in its
mine safety equipment.  MSA seeks coverage under North River's
policies as well as from several other insurers.  The critical
question of whether North River's coverage under these policies is
"triggered" -- a matter of Pennsylvania law -- is being litigated,
along with its claims against other insurers, in federal and state
courts in Pennsylvania, the Delaware Superior Court and in certain
later-filed cases in West Virginia.

North River requested that the Court of Chancery permanently
enjoin MSA from prosecuting the later-filed claims in West
Virginia and from assigning to any tort claimants the right to
recover under any insurance policy issued by North River to MSA.
During the course of this appeal, North River narrowed its focus
to the assignment issue.

In a decision dated Nov. 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of Delaware
affirmed, concluding that the Court of Chancery's judgment was
directed by conscience and reason, and was neither arbitrary nor
capricious.

The case is THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Below,
Appellant, v. MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, Defendant Below,
Appellee, NO. 8, 2014 (Del.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/OZYQPyfrom Leagle.com.

Peter B. Ladig, Esquire, Jason C. Jowers, Esquire, David J. Soldo,
Esquire, Morris James LLP, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellant.

Of Counsel: Alan S. Miller, Esquire (argued), Bridget M.
Gillespie, Esquire, Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Brian C. Ralston, Esquire, Jennifer C.
Wasson, Esquire, Michael B. Rush, Esquire, Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware for Appellee.

Of Counsel: Mark A. Packman, Esquire (argued), Gabriel Le
Chevallier, Esquire, Jenna A. Hudson, Esquire, Katrina F. Johnson,
Esquire, Gilbert LLP, Washington, D.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. High Court Allows PI Plaintiff to Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, issued an
order granting a petition for allowance of appeal limited to the
following issues:

   (1) Whether -- contrary to Howard, Betz, and Gregg -- a
       plaintiff in an asbestos action may satisfy the burden of
       establishing substantial-factor causation by an expert's
       "cumulative-exposure" theory that the expert concedes is
       simply an "any-exposure" theory by a different name[?]

   (2) Whether the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' mandatory
       practice of consolidating unrelated asbestos cases -- even
       where the defendants suffer severe prejudice as a result --
       is consistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
       Procedure and Due Process; whether consolidation in this
       case was proper; and whether the Superior Court has the
       authority to review a trial court's case-consolidation
       decisions in asbestos cases[?]

The case is RICHARD ROST & JOYCE ROST, Respondent, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Petitioner, NO. 309 EAL 2014 (Pa.).  A full-text copy of
Decision dated Nov. 6, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/d6D0gp
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntsman Int'l. Indemnified From 1,076 Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 1,076 unresolved asbestos-related cases against
Huntsman International LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We have been named as a "premises defendant"
in a number of asbestos exposure cases, typically claims by
nonemployees of exposure to asbestos while at a facility. These
complaints generally do not provide specific information about the
amount of damages being sought, the time period in which the
alleged injuries occurred or the alleged exposures giving rise to
the asserted liability. This information, which would be central
to any estimate of probable loss, generally must be obtained
through legal discovery.

"Where a claimant's alleged exposure occurred prior to our
ownership of the relevant "premises," the prior owners generally
have contractually agreed to retain liability for, and to
indemnify us against, asbestos exposure claims. This
indemnification is not subject to any time or dollar amount
limitations. Upon service of a complaint in one of these cases, we
tender it to the prior owner. The prior owner accepts
responsibility for the conduct of the defense of the cases and
payment of any amounts due to the claimants. In our twenty-year
experience with tendering these cases, we have not made any
payment with respect to any tendered asbestos cases. We believe
that the prior owners have the intention and ability to continue
to honor their indemnity obligations, although we cannot assure
you that they will continue to do so or that we will not be liable
for these cases if they do not.

"For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, there were 1,076
unresolved cases for which service has been received that we have
tendered to the indemnifying party, all of which have been
accepted by the indemnifying party.

"We have never made any payments with respect to these cases. As
of September 30, 2014, we had an accrued liability of
approximately $10 million relating to these cases and a
corresponding receivable of approximately $10 million relating to
our indemnity protection with respect to these cases. We cannot
assure you that our liability will not exceed our accruals or that
our liability associated with these cases would not be material to
our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We
are not able to estimate the amount or range of loss in excess of
our accruals. Additional asbestos exposure claims may be made
against us in the future, and such claims could be material.
However, because we are not able to estimate the amount or range
of losses associated with such claims, we have made no accruals
with respect to unasserted asbestos exposure claims as of
September 30, 2014.

"Certain cases in which we are a premises defendant are not
subject to indemnification by prior owners or operators. However,
we may be entitled to insurance or other recoveries in some of
these cases. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, there
were 48 unresolved cases for which service has been received by
us. Certain prior cases that were filed in error against us have
been

"We paid gross settlement costs for asbestos exposure cases that
are not subject to indemnification of $531,000 and $48,000 for the
nine months ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, respectively. As of
September 30, 2014, we had an accrual of $228,000 relating to
these cases. We cannot assure you that our liability will not
exceed our accruals or that our liability associated with these
cases would not be material to our financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity. We are not able to estimate the amount or
range of loss in excess of our accruals. Additional asbestos
exposure claims may be made against us in the future, and such
claims could be material. However, because we are not able to
estimate the amount or range of losses associated with such
claims, we have made no accruals with respect to unasserted
asbestos exposure claims as of September 30, 2014."

Huntsman International LLC operates in five business segments:
polyurethanes, advanced materials, textile effects, performance
products, and pigments. The company manufactures surfactants (used
in cleaning and personal care products) and performance chemicals
like polyurethanes, propylene oxides, and propylene glycol. Its
polyurethanes segment is the company's largest, representing 39%
of 2011 sales. Huntsman ranks among the largest makers of titanium
dioxide, the most commonly used white pigment, with 15% of the
world market. Huntsman International operates the business of
parent Huntsman Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., Units Continue to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and its subsidiaries continue to defend
themselves against asbestos-related personal injuries lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. As of
September 30, 2014, the majority of the Company's settlements and
legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration,
insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been
covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles.
However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent
insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements
and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are
tendered to them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions
throughout the United States. Most of the claims resolved to date
have been dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled
for various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No
provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-
related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is
expected to have a material adverse effect on its business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

IDEX Corporation (IDEX), is an applied solutions business that
sells an array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems
and components and engineered products to customers in a variety
of markets worldwide. IDEX operates in three business segments:
Fluid & Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies and
Fire & Safety/Diversified Products. Reporting units in the Fluid &
Metering Technologies segment consist of Banjo; Energy and Fuels
(Energy); Chemical, Food & Process (CFP) and Water & Waste Water
(Water). Reporting units in the Health & Science Technologies
segment consist of IDEX Health & Science (IH&S); IDEX Optics and
Photonics (IOP); Precision Polymer Engineering (PPE); Gast;
Micropump and Materials Process Technologies (MPT). Reporting
units in the Fire & Safety/Diversified Products segment consist of
Fire Suppression; Rescue Tools and Band-It. In April 2014, IDEX
Corp announced the acquisition of Aegis Flow Technologies (Aegis).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $462-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $462 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past three decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Corporation increased
its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has
requested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestos
claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine
the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study.

In October 2012, the Corporation requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2010 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2012. In December 2012, based upon ARPC's December
2012 study and the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim
and resolution activity for 2012, it was determined that no
adjustment to the accrual was required at December 31, 2012. The
Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $602 million at December 31, 2012.

In October 2013, the Corporation requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2013. In December 2013, ARPC stated that an update
of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future
events than the estimate reflected in its December 2012 study and,
therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based
on the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and
resolution activity and ARPC's response, the Corporation
determined that no change to the accrual was required. The
Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future
claims was $501 million at December 31, 2013 and approximately 19
percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and
approximately 81 percent related to future claims.

Based on the Corporation's review of 2014 activity, it was
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at
September 30, 2014. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability
for pending and future claims was $462 million at September 30,
2014. Approximately 24 percent of the recorded liability related
to pending claims and approximately 76 percent related to future
claims.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $23MM Insurance Receivable
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was $23 million, according to
the Company's  Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined by the Corporation after a thorough
review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington
Agreement, to which the Corporation and many of its liability
insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance
settlements, with due consideration given to applicable
deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account
the solvency and historical payment experience of various
insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements
with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and
collection of the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve
issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance
policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may
raise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reached
settlements with several of the carriers involved in the Insurance
Litigation and continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining
carrier. The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was $23 million at September 30,
2014, and $25 million at December 31, 2013.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage. As of September 30, 2014, the
Company's total receivables related to its asbestos-related
liability was $84 million.

The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs was $32 million for the
third quarter of 2014 ($26 million in the third quarter of 2013),
$86 million for the first nine months of 2014 ($77 million for the
first nine months of 2013) and reflected in "Cost of sales" in the
consolidated statements of income.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable were based upon
current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among
insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for the Corporation to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of the uncertainties, the Corporation's management cannot
estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem. The
Corporation's management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the cost of disposing of the Corporation's asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position
of the Corporation.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty
the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims
referred to in this filing, management believes that adequate
provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to
pending claims and proceedings, and that, except for the asbestos-
related matters, the ultimate outcome of all known and future
claims, after provisions for insurance, will not have a material
adverse impact on the results of operations, cash flows and
financial position of the Corporation. Should any losses be
sustained in connection with any of such legal proceedings and
claims in excess of provisions provided and available insurance,
they will be charged to income when determinable.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Holdings Had 54,000 PI Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Holdings, Inc., had 54,000 claims alleging bodily injury as
a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's  Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a
substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the United States
by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. These claims arose from the insulation operations of a
U.S. company, the majority of whose stock Crown Cork purchased in
1963. Approximately ninety days after the stock purchase, this
U.S. company sold its insulation assets and was later merged into
Crown Cork.

Prior to 1998, amounts paid to asbestos claimants were covered by
a fund made available to Crown Cork under a 1985 settlement with
carriers insuring Crown Cork through 1976, when Crown Cork became
self-insured. The fund was depleted in 1998 and the Company has no
remaining coverage for asbestos-related costs.

In recent years, the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming enacted legislation that limits
asbestos-related liabilities under state law of companies such as
Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because they
are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The legislation, which applies to future
and, with the exception of Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota
and Wyoming, pending claims, caps asbestos-related liabilities at
the fair market value of the predecessor's total gross assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total value of its predecessor's
assets adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has integrated the
legislation into its claims defense strategy. The Company
cautions, however, that the legislation may be challenged and
there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate effect of the
legislation on Crown Cork.

In June 2003, the state of Texas enacted legislation that limits
the asbestos-related liabilities in Texas courts of companies such
as Crown Cork that allegedly incurred these liabilities because
they are successors by corporate merger to companies that had been
involved with asbestos. The Texas legislation, which applies to
future claims and pending claims, caps asbestos-related
liabilities at the total gross value of the predecessor's assets
adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has paid significantly more for
asbestos-related claims than the total adjusted value of its
predecessor's assets.

On October 22, 2010, the Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision,
reversed a lower court decision, Barbara Robinson v. Crown Cork &
Seal Company, Inc., No. 14-04-00658-CV, Fourteenth Court of
Appeals, Texas, which had upheld the dismissal of an asbestos-
related case against Crown Cork. The Texas Supreme Court held that
the Texas legislation was unconstitutional under the Texas
Constitution when applied to asbestos-related claims pending
against Crown Cork when the legislation was enacted in June 2003.
The Company believes that the decision of the Texas Supreme Court
is limited to retroactive application of the Texas legislation to
asbestos-related cases that were pending against Crown Cork in
Texas on June 11, 2003 and therefore, in its accrual, continues to
assign no value to claims filed after June 11, 2003.

In December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted
legislation that limits the asbestos-related liabilities of
Pennsylvania corporations that are successors by corporate merger
to companies involved with asbestos. The legislation limits the
successor's liability for asbestos to the acquired company's asset
value adjusted for inflation. Crown Cork has
paid significantly more for asbestos-related claims than the
acquired company's adjusted asset value. In November 2004, the
legislation was amended to address a Pennsylvania Supreme Court
decision (Ieropoli v. AC&S Corporation, et. al., No. 117 EM 2002)
which held that the statute violated the Pennsylvania Constitution
due to retroactive application. The Company cautions that the
limitations of the statute, as amended, are subject to litigation
and may not be upheld.

The Company further cautions that an adverse ruling in any
litigation relating to the constitutionality or applicability to
Crown Cork of one or more statutes that limits the asbestos-
related liability of alleged defendants like Crown Cork could have
a material impact on the Company.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company paid
$15 million to settle outstanding claims and had 54,000 claims.

In the fourth quarter of each year, the Company performs an
analysis of outstanding claims and categorizes by year of exposure
and state filed. As of December 31, 2013, the Company's
outstanding claims were 53,000.

As of December 31, the percentage of outstanding claims related to
claimants alleging serious diseases (primarily mesothelioma and
other malignancies) was 21%; and 39% for pre-1964 claims in states
without asbestos legislation.

Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel
in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet
filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims
under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown
Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is
included in the Company's estimated liability as of September 30,
2014.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company's accrual for pending and
future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $239
million, including $195 for unasserted claims. The Company's
accrual includes estimated probable costs for claims through the
year 2023. The Company's accrual excludes potential costs for
claims beyond 2023 because the Company believes that the key
assumptions underlying its accrual are subject to greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.

It is reasonably possible that the actual loss could be in excess
of the Company's accrual. The Company is unable to estimate the
reasonably possible loss in excess of its accrual due to
uncertainty in the following assumptions that underlie the
Company's accrual and the possibility of losses in excess of such
accrual: the amount of damages sought by the claimant (which was
not specified for approximately 87% of the claims outstanding at
the end of 2013), the Company and claimant's willingness to
negotiate a settlement, the terms of settlements of other
defendants with asbestos-related liabilities, the bankruptcy
filings of other defendants (which may result in additional claims
and higher settlements for non-bankrupt defendants), the nature of
pending and future claims (including the seriousness of alleged
disease, whether claimants allege first exposure to asbestos
before or during 1964 and the claimant's ability to demonstrate
the alleged link to Crown Cork), the volatility of the litigation
environment, the defense strategies available to the Company, the
level of future claims, the rate of receipt of claims, the
jurisdiction in which claims are filed, and the effect of state
asbestos legislation (including the validity and applicability of
the Pennsylvania legislation to non-Pennsylvania jurisdictions,
where the substantial majority of the Company's asbestos cases are
filed).

Crown Holdings, Inc. is engaged in designing, manufacturing and
sale of packaging products for consumer goods. Its business is
organized within three divisions: Americas, Europe and Asia
Pacific. Its segments within the Americas Division are Americas
Beverage and North America Food. Its segments within the European
Division are European Beverage and European Food. Americas
Beverage includes beverage can operations in the United States,
Brazil, Canada, Colombia and Mexico. North America Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in the United States
and Canada. European Beverage includes beverage can operations in
Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. European Food includes
food can and metal vacuum closure operations in Europe and Africa.
Its Asia Pacific Division consists of beverage and non-beverage
can operations, primarily food cans and specialty packaging.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane & Co. Had $637-Mil. Fibro Liability
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane & Co., had an asbestos-related liability of $637 million,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated October 27, 2014, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011,
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $637 million as of September 30, 2014. It
is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at September 30, 2014 was $88
million and represents the Company's best estimate of total
asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period.
Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the
Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and
defense costs.

Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significant
portion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid by
its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary
coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers
to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and/or
defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into
agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-
in-place", with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under such
coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in
force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the
Company's present and future asbestos claims on specified terms
and conditions that address, among other things, the share of
asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms,
claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's
obligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, the
Company has entered into an agreement with a group of insurers
confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under the
subject policies and setting forth a schedule for future
reimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnity
and defense payments made. In addition, with ten of its excess
insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements,
settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed
sum, totaling $82.5 million in aggregate. Reimbursements from
insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs
allocable to their policies have been made in accordance with
these coverage-in-place and other agreements. All of these
agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification
of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handling
procedures. With the agreements, the Company has concluded
settlements with all but one of its solvent excess insurers whose
policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included
in the updated liability estimate. That insurer, which issued a
single applicable policy, has been paying the shares of defense
and indemnity costs the Company has allocated to it, subject to a
reservation of rights. There are no pending legal proceedings
between the Company and any insurer contesting the Company's
asbestos claims under its insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of
December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that
approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the
Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the
aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with
respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached
by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the
Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in
its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of
the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $155 million as of September 30, 2014.

The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement
rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order
to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established
reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance
of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect
of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout
agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments
that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate,
although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to
period, and will decline over time, for the reasons.

Uncertainties. Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for
asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties,
as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing,
severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their
resolution. The Company cautions that its estimated liability is
based on assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and
defense costs based on past experience that may not prove reliable
as predictors. A significant upward or downward trend in the
number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged
injury, the jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the
product identification, or a significant upward or downward trend
in the costs of defending claims, could change the estimated
liability, as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that
withstand appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement
transaction, or significant change in relevant case law could also
change the estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable
settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also
affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a
number of additional factors. These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the
uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be
given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to
enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or
settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the
Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related
liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as
well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive
these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company
incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the
carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if
the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change
significantly, or if there are significant developments in the
trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or
another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company
is currently unable to estimate such future changes and,
accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur
additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in
excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not
believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond
2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years,
the effect on the results of operations, financial position and
cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates
could be material.

Crane & Co.'s early claim to fame was Paul Revere engraving
banknotes on its paper during the American Revolution. The company
is best known for making US currency paper and fine cotton papers
for business and personalized stationery, such as wedding
invitations and thank you notes. Its nonwovens division makes
paper-like materials under brand names Craneglas and Cranemat that
are used in products ranging from automobiles to satellites. Crane
& Co. operates manufacturing operations in Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and internationally in Sweden. The company is owned and
managed by the eighth generation of the Crane family. Private
equity firm Goldberg Lindsay & Co. also holds a minority stake.


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

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

If the subsidiary's assets and insurance coverage were to be
exhausted, claimants of the subsidiary may actively pursue claims
against the Company because of the parent-subsidiary relationship.
Although asbestos litigation is particularly difficult to predict,
especially with respect to claims that are currently not being
actively pursued against the Company, the Company does not believe
that such claims would have merit or that the Company would be
held to have liability for any unsatisfied obligations of the
subsidiary as a result of such claims. After evaluating the nature
of the claims filed against the subsidiary and the small number of
such claims that have resulted in any payment, the potential
availability of additional insurance coverage at the subsidiary
level, the additional availability of the Company's own insurance
and the Company's strong defenses to claims that it should be held
responsible for the subsidiary's obligat Quaker Chemical
Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and markets a range of
formulated chemical specialty products for various heavy
industrial and manufacturing applications and, in addition, offers
and markets chemical management services (CMS). The Company
operates in three segments: Metalworking process chemicals,
Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking process
chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for various
heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings segment
includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and concrete
products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other chemical
products segment includes other various chemical products. In
August 2014, the Company acquired ECLI Products, LLC, specialty
grease manufacturer. On August 15, 2014, Quaker Chemical Corp
acquired CLI Products LLC.ions because of the parent-subsidiary
relationship, the Company believes it is not probable that the
Company will incur any material losses. The Company has been
successful to date having claims naming it dismissed during
initial proceedings. Since the Company may be in this early stage
of litigation for some time, it is not possible to estimate
additional losses or range of loss, if any.

Quaker Chemical Corporation (Quaker) develops, produces and
markets a range of formulated chemical specialty products for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications and, in
addition, offers and markets chemical management services (CMS).
The Company operates in three segments: Metalworking process
chemicals, Coatings and Other chemical products. The Metalworking
process chemicals segment includes industrial process fluids for
various heavy industrial and manufacturing applications. Coatings
segment includes temporary and permanent coatings for metal and
concrete products and chemical milling maskants. Its Other
chemical products segment includes other various chemical
products. In August 2014, the Company acquired ECLI Products, LLC,
specialty grease manufacturer. On August 15, 2014, Quaker Chemical
Corp acquired CLI Products LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 1,105 PI Cases as of Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation had 1,105 pending asbestos-related cases
alleging personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company was a party to 1,105 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 8,001 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries. For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the
Company had 7,975 and recorded $1,987,00 for total defense costs,
exclusive of amounts reimbursed under the Company's primary
insurance.

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

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 8,001 claims pending at September 30, 2014,
102 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those
stating the statutory minimum or maximum).

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

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all
asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years
ago, have been approximately $6.8 million. All relief sought in
the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately
40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of
asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance.
Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-
in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding
the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related
claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-
place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
there will be a period within the next one or two years, prior to
the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following
exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during
which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and
indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the
scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 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 $15,000 million 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 has 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 were conducted 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevada Officials to Try to Ease Fibro Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard N. Velotta, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reported
that Nevada Transportation Department officials tried to reassure
wary Boulder City residents that Interstate 11 construction crews
would take special measures to keep naturally occurring asbestos
from becoming a health risk.

A University of Nevada, Las Vegas geology researcher discovered
traces of asbestos in the area in December. The Transportation
Department, collaborating with the Regional Transportation
Commission of Southern Nevada on the 15-mile Boulder City bypass,
has been working to determine how much of the substance is
present, whether it would affect construction of the project and
how the presence of asbestos could be mitigated.

At a public meeting at Boulder City's Elaine K. Smith Center,
about 100 people heard a presentation on how crews would deal with
the asbestos, then peppered a panel of seven experts with
questions. The department was to take public comments on the
state's plans through Nov. 4.

Steve Cooke, the department's environmental services manager, said
concentrations of asbestos within the rocks and soil aren't the
problem -- it's when that dust becomes airborne and spreads into
the environment that it could become harmful.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says being
exposed to asbestos doesn't mean an individual would develop
health problems. But it could increase a person's chances of
contracting lung cancer and exacerbate pre-existing lung
conditions.

Cooke said the most effective way to minimize the likelihood of
asbestos from becoming airborne is to water the site often and
abundantly.

Vehicles will have reduced speed limits to minimize dust.

Ambient air monitoring already has begun around Boulder City, and
readings will be taken daily for the next three years to monitor
the level of asbestos.  Construction workers will be required to
wear disposable Tyvek suits that will be discarded daily when they
work on the project. Vehicles in work zones will be washed daily
as well.

When a UNLV research team led by Brenda Buck discovered asbestos
in the Boulder City area, the department ordered its own soil
samples, from the surface to 200 feet below grade, the approximate
depth of some of the road cuts.  The department took 611 samples
and found 154 of them with less than 0.25 percent concentration of
asbestos, the level at which it is considered "restricted
material." Only 12 samples were above the 1 percent level at which
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires
mitigation activities.

The highest levels of asbestos were found on the eastern portion
of the project, near where the bypass will tie into the highway
leading to the Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge over
the Colorado River.

Residents commenting at the meeting were most concerned about
construction work during spring's windy days. The project is due
to start in May.

Cooke said on extremely windy days the project probably would be
shut down.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UPenn Seeks to Track Ambler's Fibro Legacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Bauers, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reported that
Joe Amento, a lifelong resident of Ambler, Pennsylvania, 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.

Over four years, researchers from genetics to chemistry will study
how people are exposed.  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 co-chair 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: Hope for Fibro Victims After Landmark Victory
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Keegan, writing for Mirror, reported that a landmark British
Supreme Court victory for an family of asbestos cancer victim
Percy has opened the doors for other victims to seek damages.

Percy McDonald from Devon died aged 83 in February a week before
the Supreme Court began hearing his case.  But his widow Edna took
up the battle to receive a fair settlement to provide for her
family after his death.

Delivery driver Percy died from the aggressive terminal cancer
mesothelioma, caused by exposure to dangerous asbestos dust
decades ago when he regularly visited Battersea Power Station to
pick up waste products.

The High Court in Bristol ruled last year that Percy and his
family could not receive compensation because he was not employed
by the occupier of the site and his work was not directly involved
in the asbestos industry.

The Appeal Court overturned that decision and now the five Supreme
Court judges by a majority of three to two have dismissed an
appeal by the National Grid , owners of the power station, against
that ruling.

The family's lawyers Irwin Mitchell say the ruling in the family's
favour clarifies the law and gives greater protection to current
and future victims of industrial diseases and accidents who are
simply carrying out their day to day jobs.

Percy's son Eric said: "As a family we wanted to carry on the case
after Dad's death because we knew how important it was to him and
wanted to ensure that others would be protected in future. It was
only because he went to work every day that he became ill, and
that was extremely difficult for us to come to terms with.

"I'm really pleased with the Supreme Court's Judgment and thank
the judges for taking the time to hear our case. I've seen first-
hand how devastating mesothelioma can be and we were all
distraught when Dad died, especially as he didn't get to finish
what he started in the courts.

"We would rather have Dad with us still, but hopefully other
people affected will now be able to succeed in their legal battles
too."

The judgment with Lord Kerr, Lady Hale and Lord Clarke outvoting
Lord Reed and Lord Neuberger, gives guidance on several key points
of law.

Irwin Mitchell say it establishes that under the Factories Act it
is the occupier of the premises which is responsible for the
welfare of the people on site, not just those that it directly
employs.

Secondly it also states that the Asbestos Industry Regulations
apply to all factories using asbestos -- not just those involved
in the asbestos industry.

The solicitors say the way is now open for them to secure a fair
settlement to provide financial support for the family after Percy
died through no fault of his own.

Partner Alida Coates said: "This is a victory for all victims of
asbestos-related diseases who have been exposed to the deadly dust
while visiting factory premises as part of their day-to-day job.
It also extends the scope of the Factories Act to assist those
injured during their work on factory sites. "It makes perfectly
clear that the occupiers of the factory building have
responsibility for protecting people engaged in processes on their
site, not just their direct employees.

"This judgment will not only provide reassurance for those who are
currently in a similar situation and are also suffering from
mesothelioma or other industrial diseases, but also the many
people who will receive the devastating news in future that they
have contracted the terminal cancer as a result of exposure
decades ago.

"This case is the latest in a long line of challenges over the
past few years as insurers have sought to limit access to justice
for victims of asbestos diseases. This Judgment will give all
people who work on factory sites additional protection in their
working environment. At a time when the current Government seem
set on eroding the protection offered to people at work, it is
refreshing to note that the Judges in the Supreme Court take the
protection of workers seriously."

Although asbestos use is now illegal in the UK, it was once a
popular construction material and has affected thousands of people
over the past few decades. More than 2,500 people currently die
from mesothelioma each year, a figure which is expected to peak
before 2020.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Knew About Mr. Fluffy Risk 25 Years Ago
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
Australian Commonwealth received expert medical advice more than
25 years ago warning Canberra's death rate to mesothelioma would
almost certainly rise if people lived with Mr Fluffy insulation
and that children were particularly vulnerable to harm from the
asbestos fibres.

One international occupational health expert said "This is a
public health asbestos problem far greater than any documented
elsewhere in the world."

According to documents obtained by the Fluffy Owners and
Residents' Action Group Founder Brianna Heseltine under Freedom of
Information legislation, both the National Health and Medical
Research Council and occupational health academic Dr David Douglas
provided separate reports to the Commonwealth on the acute health
risks of Mr Fluffy in 1988 as it was preparing to remove the Class
1 carcinogen from the roof spaces of more than 1000 homes.

The owners of those houses now await a decision from the ACT and
Commonwealth Governments on whether they should be demolished,
having shown significant amounts of residual asbestos
contamination in their walls and subfloors in spite of a five-year
$100 million removal program. To date, 12 properties in Queanbeyan
have been found to still contain all their original asbestos -
having never been included in the original clean-up.

Professor Bruce Armstrong, then Director and Professor of
Epidemiology and Cancer Research at the NHMRC, wrote to the ACT
Administration to "confirm and amplify" advice he had delivered to
its Asbestos Taskforce which was handling the removal program pre
self-Government.

Professor Armstrong acknowledged at that time it was already clear
that Mr Fluffy had escaped from some roof cavities and had entered
living spaces of a number of Canberra homes.

Using guidelines developed by the United States Research Council
Committee on Nonoccupational Risk of Asbestiform Fibres, Professor
Armstrong said the risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer for an
average Australian over a lifetime was 26 deaths per million
people.

But the risk to people living in homes with Mr Fluffy insulation
skyrocketed to 650 deaths per million people.

"That is about 1 in 1000 lifetime residents would die in
consequence of their exposure to asbestos in one of the affected
houses. It should be noted that the National Research Council's
estimates were based on exposure to mixed asbestos fibres
including chrysotile which carries a lower risk of mesothelioma
than does amosite. Thus the risk in the Canberra houses would be
likely to be greater than the above estimates would suggest."

Professor Armstrong recommended the expeditious removal of the
asbestos "from roof spaces as well as whatever asbestos had
accumulated in the living spaces". He also noted that residents
would experience anxiety if they believed themselves to be exposed
to asbestos.

In a separate report prepared by the former Chairman of the
Occupational Health Guides Committee of the National Health and
Medical Research Council  Dr David Douglas, children were a
primary concern in terms of the need to remove Mr Fluffy from
homes.

"Children are at are at particular risk because of the
susceptibility of developing lung tissue to damage; and because of
the long latent period during which changes can occur," said Dr
Douglas, a former Head of Scientific Policy for the United Kingdom
Health and Safety Executive.

"In spite of difficulties in quantification, I would expect to see
a measurable excess of asbestos-related disease in the occupiers,"
he said.

Dr Douglas said the Mr Fluffy issue was "a public health asbestos
problem far greater than any documented elsewhere in the world"
and the levels of exposure to deadly fibres by the men who were
hired to install Mr Fluffy by operator Dirk Jansen -- including
his sons -- were "likely to have been as high as any ever
recorded".

Dr Douglas noted that occupiers of Mr Fluffy homes he had
interviewed had "expressed anxiety not only about suffering an
asbestos disease, but also the fear of asbestos disease and about
their concern and frustration at their housing predicament."

"Anxiety and fear are major causes of disability. The levels of
both will rise the longer people continue to live in the asbestos
insulated homes."

Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group founder Ms Heseltine
said the passage of time had done nothing to change the nature of
these risks faced by more than 1000 homeowners.

"I don't see too many options here for the ACT, NSW and
Commonwealth governments. They either decide that there is an
acceptable death toll among the Mr Fluffy owner and resident
population, or they come together to eliminate the risk."

She said the 25 year-old advice was particularly heartbreaking in
the case of Queanbeyan homes, which have never been remediated.

"It defies belief that the NSW Government has not revised its
position that fibres do not pose a threat if left undisturbed. Dr
Douglas' report clearly states that material can escape through
the tiles, and that wind and water damage and fires could result
in high levels of exposure", she said.

Ms Heseltine said anxiety and stress levels were "off the charts"
in the owner and resident population in Canberra and Queanbeyan as
people awaited a government decision on their homes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafe Report Raises Concerns About Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
The union representing construction workers in the rebuild of
Canterbury, New Zealand, is surprised at WorkSafe's conclusion
that no action needs to be taken against EQC and Fletcher EQR over
asbestos exposure in Canterbury homes.

"This report was an opportunity for WorkSafe to send a strong
message to construction companies and principal contractors about
the need to be careful and conscientious about asbestos," says Ron
Angel, EPMU construction industry organiser.

"We're worried that there is no accountability or protection for
the workers and residents who have been put at risk of asbestos
exposure."

EPMU Construction is aware of many cases of ignorant or even
negligent behaviour by construction companies, which take a
relaxed approach to the health and safety of their workers and the
public.

"Asbestos is a significant hazard, no one should be exposed and it
must be taken seriously. It is totally unacceptable for WorkSafe's
CEO to say it's "inevitable" there would be instances of work not
being up to best practice," says Ron Angel.

"When dealing with asbestos, best practice is the one thing
workers and members of the public should expect.

"We are seeking a copy of the full report so we can make sense of
the disconnect between what WorkSafe's saying and what we know the
situation to be."

EPMU Construction will continue to keep a close watch on asbestos
risks in the rebuild, and raise workers' concerns with WorkSafe.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Poor Diagnosis Deprives SA Miners of Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
BizNews.com reported that only half of former asbestos mine
workers in South Africa who have an asbestos related disease (ARD)
are diagnosed while they are still alive.

This was the finding by researchers who compared the medical
records of 149 former asbestos mineworkers with their autopsy
findings.

"There was a very high rate of asbestos-related disease. Sixty
three percent had an ARD at autopsy.  But only half of the cases
were diagnosed in life," Professor Jill Murray, of the School of
Public Health at the University of the Witwatersrand, told the
International Mesothelioma Interest Group Conference currently
under way at the Cape Town International Convention Centre.

Mesothelioma is a cancer of the pleura or peritoneum diagnosed up
to 40 years after exposure to asbestos.

Murray conducted the research with a colleague, Zodwa Ndlovu, and
Dr Jim te WaterNaude, medical consultant to the Asbestos and
Kgalagadi Relief Trusts, which commissioned the research.

"This highlights the difficulty of making accurate diagnoses of
these diseases," said Murray. "The clinical diagnosis of asbestos-
related diseases is not straightforward because other diseases may
have similar symptoms. This raises the concern that poorly
resourced public health care facilities may be missing many cases
of disease."

This shortcoming meant that many former mineworkers with asbestos
related diseases were not able to claim compensation from the
state, or the trusts, while they were still alive. The research
team concluded that "the cessation of asbestos mining and usage in
South Africa has drastically reduced occupational exposures but
because of long latency, ARDs are still seen in former asbestos
miners and workers. In addition, widespread contamination of the
environment following decades of production, suggests an
indefinite ARD epidemic in this country."

Asbestos trusts face many more claims

Meanwhile, up to 233 new claimants suffering from mesothelioma,
could still lodge claims against two private sector trusts formed
to compensate former asbestos mine workers.

Presenting at the conference on behalf of five colleagues,
Professor Gill Nelson of the University of the Witwatersrand's
School of Public Health, warned the trusts that between 144 and
233 more mesothelioma claims can be expected by 2030. This was in
addition to 464 confirmed mesothelioma cases already compensated
by the trusts.

The Asbestos Relief Trust and the Kgalagadi Relief Trust were set
up in 2003 and 2006 respectively by the former owners of various
asbestos mines throughout South Africa.  More than 16 000 former
mineworkers covered by the trusts have already been assessed and 5
400 claims to the value of R358 million paid.

In recent years the trusts have compensated an increasing number
of mesothelioma claimants, who receive a much bigger benefit
because of the severity of the disease.  The trusts therefore
sponsored research by Nelson and her colleagues to ensure that
sufficient funds are set aside for future mesothelioma sufferers.

Although South Africa was a major producer of asbestos for many
decades, the trustees previously had to use international data for
mesothelioma projections.  Nelson and her colleagues have now
developed a new "home grown" mathematical model using the trusts'
mesothelioma data.

The researchers found that that although the number of
mesothelioma claims against the trusts appeared to have peaked in
2009  -- and would slow with the passage of time -- the trustees
could plan for 183 further cases until 2030 (with a range of
between 144 and 233 cases).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Demolition Deal Sparks Probe in NOLA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rainey, writing for The Times-Picayune, reported that
Hamp's Construction Co., a demolition firm that Mayor Mitch
Landrieu of New Orleans once publicly chastised as irresponsible,
is now the target of a state environmental investigation over its
handling of asbestos at five sites managed by the New Orleans
Redevelopment Authority.

Documents and a series of emails obtained by NOLA.com/The Times-
Picayune between the company, NORA and state regulators suggest
that Hamp's demolished the residences without first properly
testing for the known carcinogen in the building materials. The
company also has not provided proof that it sent the debris to a
landfill certified to handle asbestos-laden construction waste.

Jeff Hebert, NORA's executive director, said he has requested
Hamp's produce "dump tickets," receipts that indicate the cost to
drop off the debris and which landfill received it. So far he said
he's gotten no answer from the firm.

"We don't have any information on where it's going," Hebert said.

Hamp's owner, Charlie Hampton, didn't respond to a message left at
his office seeking comment.

Hamp's has had a rocky relationship with City Hall for years.
Landrieu dressed down Hampton at a public community meeting in
Algiers in August 2013, telling Hampton he should be ashamed of
how his company handled asbestos debris at the former Higgins Gate
Apartment complex.

State investigators intervened in the Higgins Gate demolition work
in 2008 after they found Hamp's wasn't following state
environmental protection laws when hauling away asbestos-laden
material from there.

It appears those investigators have jumped in again. Dwight
Bradshaw, a scientist with the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, wrote the Louisiana Land Trust in August to
ask for any information regarding its arrangement with NORA over
demolitions of Hurricane Katrina-damaged properties under the Road
Home program. The state-created land trust had transferred all
Road Home-eligible properties to NORA's control in recent years.

Bradshaw also asked the land trust for its inspection reports from
2010 through 2012 on the five properties in question:

      * 4908 Bonita Drive
      * 11730 West Barrington Drive
      * 4005 Clematis St.
      * 7800 North Coronet Court
      * 6420 Eads St.

At two sites, 4908 Bonita and 11730 West Barrington, the land
trust's inspection contractor, CDM Smith, discovered material that
contained asbestos a full two years before Hamp's began its
demolitions, according to land trust records. The other three
addresses weren't slated to be torn down before the trust
transferred them to NORA, so the trust did not have asbestos
inspection reports on them.

NORA hired Hamp's on April 25 of this year after the company
outbid three competitors in March: Durr Heavy Construction, DRC
Emergency Services and Cross Environmental Services. Hamp's said
it could do the work for no more than $1.68 million, about
$180,000 less than the next lowest quote. State law requires
public agencies go with the cheapest bid. The contract was a pay-
as-you-go arrangement that allowed NORA to pay only for completed
work.

Hamp's tore down the five properties in late July or early August,
records show. The firm then billed NORA $28,280.

Carlos Hampton, a manager for Hamp's, submitted forms on Sept. 24
to the state Department of Environmental Quality where he checked
a box that indicated he did not find asbestos at any of the sites
when he inspected them on Aug. 8 and Aug. 11.

Bradshaw, the state environmental scientist, sent an email to
Hampton the next day, calling his reports "inaccurate and
incomplete." He chastised the manager for conducting only a visual
inspection rather than testing the material at the sites. He wrote
that any demolition where suspicious material could be seen must
be considered to contain asbestos until a more thorough analysis
can be done.

Records show Hampton had analyses from Advanced Environmental
Consulting, which confirmed in early September that its inspectors
had found the asbestos-containing material "chrylosite" in some
floor tiles at 4908 Bonita.

The consulting firm's president, Glenn Johnson, wrote Hampton on
Sept. 9 to say "Results, attached, confirmed asbestos above the
regulatory limit of greater than one percent in both samples."

The consulting firm found similar results at 6420 Eads, 7800 North
Coronet and 11730 West Barrington, records show.

Beyond questions over Hamp's approach to asbestos-containing
material, NORA may not have been obligated to hire an outside
demolition firm in the first place.

Previous demolitions of Road Home properties in New Orleans were
handled in-house by the land trust or its contractor, CDM Smith,
at no cost to NORA. In fact, the trust began tearing down 13 other
properties for NORA in July.

Land trust spokeswoman GeGe Roulaine said NORA could have asked
the state entity to take down those five residences instead of
asking for public bids from demolition firms. And notes from
meetings between the land trust and the state Office of Community
Development, which ultimately oversees the Road Home program, back
up her assertion.

For example, representatives of the two agencies on a conference
call in February explicitly agreed that NORA could ask the land
trust to tear down any properties transferred to the local agency.

But Hebert, NORA's director, strongly disagreed. He said the land
trust would only tear down properties that were marked for
demolition before NORA took them over. That number included the 13
properties the began coming down in July, but it did not include
the five properties in question, he said, leaving NORA responsible
for their removal.

Meanwhile, Hebert said NORA has stopped all demolition orders with
Hamp's and hired an emergency contractor, Big Yellow Construction
Co. of New Orleans, to clean up the five sites. He said his agency
was fully cooperating with the state's investigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Board Approves Up to $5MM for Abatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the Parkway School District
Board of Education in Ohio voted night to spend up to $5 million
over the next three years for asbestos abatement in its buildings.
But the district actually may spend much less, if district
residents don't pass a $93.9 million bond issue in the Nov. 4
election to renovate its buildings.

The district approved contracts with Spray Services Inc., Midwest
Service Group Inc., and Envirotech Inc. for work.

The district plans to call on the contractors when asbestos has to
be abated during routine maintenance and the renovation work
funded by the bond issue.

District Manager of Planning and Engineering Scott Bennett said
the bond issue would cover some of the abatement costs if it
passes. If the bond issue doesn't pass, the abatement work might
mainly involve such things as removing asbestos insulation around
a pipe that needs to be replaced, he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Suit Filed by Former Shipyard Worker
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a
number of companies are being sued by a former shipyard worker who
claims he was unknowingly exposed to asbestos which later resulted
in his contraction of lung cancer.

Otis W. Burmaster filed suit against Avondale Industries, Northop
Grumman Ship Sytems Inc., Huntington Ingalls Inc., Onebeacon
America Insurance Company, Albert Bossier, J.D. Roberts,
Bayercropscinece Inc., Crane Co., CBS Corporation, Eagle Inc.,
Foster Wheeler Energy Company, Hopeman Brohters Inc.,
International Paper Company, McCarty Corporation, Owens Illinois
Inc., Reilly-Benton Company Inc., Riley Power Inc., Taylor-
Seidenbach Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Uniroyal Inc., Crosby
Valve Inc., FMC Corporation, Goulds Pumps Inc., Ingersoll Rand
Company, Warren Pumps LLC, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and
Maryland Casualty Company in the Orleans Parish Civil District
Court on Sept. 15.

Burmaster alleges that he was exposed to asbestos materials during
his time of employment with Avondale Industries at their shipyard
in Westwego where he worked on Coast Guard cutter ships from 1965
to 1971. The plaintiff contends he inhaled asbestos fibers while
handling asbestos insulation and other asbestos containing
products designed, manufactured, sol and supplied by the
defendants. Burmaster asserts that exposure has resulted in his
contraction of lung cancer.

The defendants are accused of withholding information about the
dangers of asbestos, failing to provide a safe place to work,
failing to provide industrial hygiene measures, failing to provide
proper safety equipment, omitting critical medical and safety
information about the safety and health risks associated with
asbestos exposure, failing to timely remove asbestos hazards from
the workplace, failing to properly supervise and monitor work
areas and failing to provide a safe and suitable means of
eliminating asbestos dust in the air.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and
suffering, mental anguish, medical expenses, rehabilitation and
loss of earnings.

Burmaster is represented by Mickey P. Landry of New Orleans-based
Landry&  Swarr LLC.

The case has been assigned to Division M Judge Paulette R. Irons.

Case no. 2014-09051.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owner Indicted in Fibro Case
---------------------------------------------
The Toledo Blade reported that the owner of the former Champion
Spark Plug property on Upton Avenue, in Toledo, Ohio, has been
indicted by a Lucas County grand jury on charges he hired an
uncertified worker to remove asbestos-containing materials from a
building on the site.

Donzell Moore, 41, of 3301 Algonquin Pkwy. and his company,
Moorhouse Real Estate Development LLC, were indicted for
complicity to engaging in asbestos hazard abatement activity
without a certificate, complicity to engaging in asbestos removal
work without prior written notice to the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, and complicity to illegal disposal of
construction and demolition debris.

The indictment accuses Mr. Moore of hiring Ronald Gibson of
Holland to perform the work in September and October of 2012. In a
separate case, Mr. Gibson was indicted for engaging in asbestos
hazard abatement activity without a license, engaging in asbestos
removal work without prior written notice to the Ohio EPA, and
illegal disposal of construction and demolition debris.

Mr. Moore is to be arraigned Nov. 4 before Common Pleas Judge
Frederick McDonald, while Mr. Gibson is to be arraigned Nov. 5
before Judge Linda Jennings. Mr. Moore was issued a cleanup notice
for the Champion site July 3 after Mayor D. Michael Collins
visited the site and saw two men dumping old concrete. They said
they had permission from the owner.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Late-Filed Garlock Fibro Claims To be Junked
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled that any unfiled claims
after the approved bar date in the Garlock Sealing Technologies
bankruptcy will be disallowed.

The debtors in the case -- which include Garlock, Garrison
Litigation Management Group and The Anchor Packing Company --
requested a bar date on April 28 in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of North Carolina.  A bar date in a
bankruptcy proceeding is a deadline for asbestos victims or
companies to make their claims against Garlock or Garrison, which
is intended to prevent surprise claims from arising.

Hodges held a hearing on July 9 to discuss the motion, during
which he granted the request and established Sept. 30 as the bar
date.

As a result, a bar date notice was provided to the parties
involved, which notified holders of settled asbestos claims that
they were required to file a proof of claim for their settled
asbestos claims against either debtor.

As of the bar date, more than 2,000 proofs of claim forms
asserting settled asbestos claims have been filed.

However, holders of the unfiled claims failed to file proofs of
claim forms asserting the claims on time.

The debtors filed a motion to disallow any claims that were filed
without the required proof of claim forms before the settled
asbestos claims bar date on Sept. 30.

"Because the holders of the unfiled claims have failed to file a
proof of claim before the bar date, their claims should be
disallowed as settled asbestos claims," the debtors wrote.

Hodges granted the request stating that "any holder of a
disallowed unfiled claim, may assert his or her claim as an
unsettled and unliquidated asbestos claim under a plan of
reorganization or otherwise, subject to all defenses debtors may
have to such claim and any procedures or requirements applicable
to such claims imposed by this court or otherwise."

The debtors' motions were directed against the following firms:

-Belluck & Fox LLP;

-Simmons, Browder, Gianaris, Angelides & Barnerd LLC;

-Bifferato Gentilotti LLC;

-Simon Grenstone Panatier Bartlett PC; and

-Waters & Kraus LLP.

The debtors claim that disallowing late claims is "essential" to
their ongoing reorganization efforts.  They argue that if the
court allows the untimely claims, it would undermine their
objective "by running the risk of opening up the floodgates to
other late-filed claims."

In their request, the debtors explain there is a "substantial
uncertainty" regarding the number of settled Garlock claims; and
in their amended plan, the debtors intend on paying all claims in
full, which can be difficult to prepare for when the number of
claims are unknown.

"Requiring that the settled asbestos claims be filed by the
settled asbestos claims bar date is the first step in the process
that will enable the number and amount of such claims to be
finally fixed and then paid in full on the effective date," the
motion states.

The debtors add that a bar date acts as a statute of limitations
for the filing process and excludes late claims "in order to
provide the debtor and its creditors with finality to the claims
process and permit the debtor to make swift distributions under
the plan."  They argue that by failing to file the required
documents on time, holders of the unfiled claims have "opted out
of the claims allowance process."

In their plan of reorganization, the debtors explain that
claimants filing an untimely manner would have to file unsettled,
unliquidated claims and would not be able to vote as a settled
claimant. Instead, they would have to vote as a "Garlock asbestos
claimant."

Because courts in the past have "routinely" disallowed claims that
are not filed by the appropriate time, the debtors believe it is
the proper action to take in this case.

"Debtors need a declaration that the claims are disallowed as
settled asbestos claims, so that they can move this process
forward, focus their attention on the claims that were timely
filed, and thus ensure that the total number and amount of settled
asbestos claims are established fully and finally by the effective
date, permitting payment in full," the debtors wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Virgin Islands Suits Cut From MDL
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a Pennsylvania
federal judge overseeing multidistrict asbestos litigation brought
by merchant mariners ended 32 of their suits in a decision, saying
the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant companies because
they weren't primarily based in the Virgin Islands, where the
suits were brought.

The Virgin Islands plaintiffs did not argue that the court had
specific jurisdiction over their claims, admitting their injuries
did not occur there or result from the defendants' contacts there,
but instead alleged that the corporate defendants had sufficient
contacts with the Virgin Islands for the court to establish
general jurisdiction over them in that forum.

In his order dismissing the suits, U.S. District Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno said that under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this year
in Daimler AG v. Bauman, the application of general jurisdiction
over corporate defendants has been "substantially curtailed" and
can only be applied when a company is incorporated or has its
principal place of business in the forum. Judge Robreno thus ruled
that the court lacks jurisdiction over the three sets of
defendants named by the plaintiffs -- companies with no contacts
in the Virgin Islands, companies with subsidiaries in the Virgin
Islands, and even the six defendants with some undisputed contacts
with the Virgin Islands.

"The court concludes that none of the defendants can be said to
have such substantial and continuous contacts with the Virgin
Islands that it is 'essentially at home' there as it would be if
it were incorporated or had its principal place of business
there," Judge Robreno wrote.

Judge Robreno's ruling comes just under a month after he ended 225
of the asbestos suits that had been filed in Ohio. In his
September order, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss
without providing new reasoning, instead relying on its holdings
in two previous decisions, August 2013's Bartel, where it granted
418 motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and
March's Jacobs, where it granted 5,974 such motions, along with
its own April order.

In both of the referenced cases, the court said the seamen failed
to show that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over
the defendants or that they had not timely asserted or had waived
their personal jurisdiction defense.

In his opinion in Bartel, Judge Robreno said the court did not
have personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants, whose only
Ohio contacts, if any, were unrelated to the plaintiffs' injuries,
because Ohio does not recognize general jurisdiction.

In his Jacobs ruling, Judge Robreno said: "Because the plaintiffs'
complaints did not make jurisdictional allegations about any of
the shipowner defendants' specific activities that allegedly
caused injury to the plaintiffs, this court found that there was
no personal jurisdiction over the defendants."

The plaintiffs in Bartel and Jacobs argued that the shipowner
defendants waived their right to raise the defense of lack of
personal jurisdiction through statements they made in the 1980s
and '90s, but the court found the defendants did not waive that
defense because they consistently raised it throughout the
litigation and did not participate in the litigation of their own
volition.

Before Jacobs, the plaintiffs submitted further evidence they said
proved the waiver, but Judge Robreno said, "The court is not
persuaded that these exhibits show by a preponderance of the
evidence a universal waiver by all defendants, in all cases, in
perpetuity."

Over 60,000 cases and 3.5 million asbestos claims were transferred
to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania starting in 1991. The list
of defendants in the sprawling multidistrict litigation includes
companies as diverse as General Electric Co., 3M Co., General
Motors Corp., DuPont Co. and Sears Roebuck & Co.

The massive MDL, which is the longest-running mass tort in U.S.
history, has frequently ended in settlements and other dismissals
of the individual cases involved, and approximately 2,668 cases
remain the MDL, according to the order.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by John E. Herrick and John D.
Hurst of Motley Rice LLC.

The defendants are represented by Harold W. Henderson, Richard C.
Binzley and Susan K. Dirks of Thompson Hine LLP.

The case is In re: Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No.
VI), case number 2:02-md-00875, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Contaminated Hospital to be Demolished
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that a hospital in Derbyshire, England, found to
contain extensive amounts of asbestos is to be demolished and
replaced with a health centre.

Hospital wards and most outpatient services were transferred from
Heanor Memorial Hospital after brown asbestos was found in the
boiler room during an inspection in September 2013.

Further surveys then discovered asbestos throughout the heating
system.  The new health centre is expected to open in the
Derbyshire town in about two years.

Andy Layzell, chief officer of Southern Derbyshire Clinical
Commissioning Group, said: "Just about all of the services which
were previously provided in the hospital, as well as those which
are currently provided in the Wilmot Street Health Centre, will
move into that new building.

"The only difference is that it won't have any inpatient beds in
it."

'Increase in beds'

Inpatient beds will be provided at Ilkeston Hospital and a local
authority community care centre being built in Heanor.

End-of-life beds will be provided in a care home.

"There will actually be an increase in the number of beds which
will be available locally," said Mr Layzell.

A report said the cost of work to remove the asbestos from the
hospital would have been "substantial".

"It was clear that the hospital was struggling to meet rules on
fire safety, electrical safety and access for disabled people so
it was expected that some big decisions would have to be made,"
the report said.

Professional advice was that the hospital building had "reached
the end of its life" as a healthcare facility.

"Asbestos had been the catalyst for the consultation but the
service review was overdue in any case," the report said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School to Remain Closed After Fibro Finding
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Cotton, writing for Barnsley Chronicle, reported that a
British school where asbestos was revealed after flood damage will
remain closed until after Christmas, the council says.

More than 220 pupils at Worsbrough Bank End Primary had been due
to return from their summer holidays in September when they
learned their school would not be reopening.

They had their holiday extended by more than a week before moving
into temporary buildings, and at other schools Barnsley Academy,
and the Sunnybank Children's Centre.

The total cost of repairs and alternative arrangements are
estimated at GBP300,000, but the council says insurance is
covering the bill.

Initially the council said the school would be closed for 'at
least two months' but the current estimate is that school will not
return to normal until January 5.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Center Encourage Workers to Call for Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Mesothelioma Victims Center believes that individuals who were
exposed to asbestos at a chemical manufacturing facility could
qualify for a compensation settlement that exceeds one million
dollars, but it is incredibly vital they have instant access to
the nation's most skilled mesothelioma compensation lawyers for
the best possible compensation results. For more information,
diagnosed victims or their family members are urged to contact the
Mesothelioma Compensation Center anytime at 866-714-6466 or visit
http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "Individuals who were
exposed to asbestos at a chemical manufacturing facility may have
compensation claims that easily exceed one million dollars. We
really need to emphasize when it comes to asbestos exposure,
financial compensation involving a mesothelioma victim or their
family members needs to be carried out by a specialist
mesothelioma attorney who has decades of experience dealing with
mesothelioma and chemical manufacturing facilities.

"This is in contrast to TV mesothelioma marketing law firms and
local personal injury attorneys who can attempt a mesothelioma
compensation claim by will not have the experience to be highly
successful." For more information, any recently diagnosed
mesothelioma victim or their loved ones can contact the
Mesothelioma Victims Center at 866-714-6466, or they can contact
the group at: http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the states with the
largest number of chemical manufacturing employees include:

* Texas
* California
* Louisiana
* New Jersey
* Pennsylvania

"We are very focused on individuals who worked at a chemical
manufacturing facility, especially in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's,
or 1980's because most of these facilities were loaded with
asbestos, for fire prevention," says the Mesothelioma Victims
Center. "We also need to emphasize we are the only group in the
nation that instantly provides any diagnosed victim of
mesothelioma or their family members with the names and contact
information for the nation's leading mesothelioma attorneys-on the
spot."

For more information, diagnosed victims of mesothelioma or their
family members are urged to contact the Mesothelioma Victims
Center anytime at 866-714-6466 for their unsurpassed services.
http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

Information About Mesothelioma For Diagnosed Victims And Their
Families From The Mesothelioma Victims Center:

High risk work groups for exposure to asbestos include US Navy
Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery
workers, manufacturing workers, plumbers, electricians, auto
mechanics, machinists, or construction workers. Typically the
exposure to asbestos occurred in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or
1980's. http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com

According to the US Center for Disease Control the average age for
a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is 72 years old.  Frequently
victims of mesothelioma are initially misdiagnosed with pneumonia.
This year between 2500, and 3000 US citizens will be diagnosed
with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is attributable to exposure to
asbestos.

According to the CDC the states indicated with the highest
incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West
Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana,
Washington, and Oregon. However, based on the calls the
Mesothelioma Victims Center receives a diagnosed victim of
mesothelioma could live in any state including New York, Florida,
California, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, North
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming,
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Idaho, or Alaska.

For an up-to-date map from the CDC showing the states with the
highest incidence of mesothelioma please refer to their web site
on this topic.

The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "Before you hire a
mesothelioma attorney please call us at 866-714-6466, and compare
the qualifications of who we consider to be the nation's most
skilled mesothelioma attorneys to any other lawyer, or law firm.
When it comes to obtaining the best mesothelioma compensation
settlement, the quality of the attorney matters, as we would like
to explain anytime." http://MesotheliomaVictimsCenter.Com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rise in Cancer Cases Reported Near Fibro Factory
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that rise in mesothelioma cases near a former
asbestos factory in Melbourne, Australia's west has been reported
by the Victorian Cancer Registry.

In the 12 years to 2013, 16 people developed the disease within
two kilometres of the Wunderlich site in Sunshine North.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive asbestos-related cancer affecting
the lungs and abdomen.

Victorian Health Department spokesperson Bram Alexander said the
increase was not unexpected.

"There has been a slight increase in the number of deaths," Mr
Alexander said.

"When you consider that this asbestos factory operated from back
to the 40s and up until the early 80s, it's not unexpected to find
occupational-related illness associated with people engaged in
business with people in the factory."

The Wunderlich factory manufactured asbestos sheeting for 50 years
up until the early 1980s and was owned by both CSR and James Hardy
before it closed.

Mr Alexander said that in each of the cases, exposure occurred
while the factory was in operation.

"None of these cases are recent, they all go back to when the
asbestos factory was operating, before the 80s, and that's the
characteristic of asbestos-related diseases," he said.

"It takes decades after initial exposure to asbestos for someone
to be actually diagnosed and for the onset of illness."

Roof space, soil and air being tested for asbestos

An independent hygienist was commissioned to test asbestos levels
at sites near the plant to see if there may be cases of people not
directly linked to the factory.

Mr Alexander said the expert would test roof spaces, soil and air
in the area, overseen by the Environment Protection Authority
(EPA).

"The expert advisory group has determined that there needs to be
more statistical and epidemiologic analysis and that does take
time to do," he said.

"Already there has been a deal of work done to get to this point,
but we probably need to give it some more time to nut those sorts
of things out."

ABC 7.30 has reported that Slater and Gordon asbestos litigation
lawyer Margaret Kent had noticed that Sunshine North street names
were frequently occurring in firm's case files.

"It's amazing to me how many people we had heard of, or had
contact with, who played in the back of the factory," Ms Kent told
the program on October 22.

"It's what kids did in North Sunshine, particularly during the
50s, 60s and 70s, there weren't many other places.

"But also we have had contact with people who worked near the
factory, went to school near the factory or who simply lived near
it."

The EPA would also be re-testing the 10 homes that the Herald Sun
reported to be linked with asbestos.

Mr Alexander said there would be a meeting for concerned residents
at Victoria University Convention Centre on October 30.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Welder Died From Fibro-related Disease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge News reported that a pensioner who used to work as a
welder died from an asbestos-related disease, an inquest has
heard.

Richard Benson, of Cavendish Road, Clare, trained at the United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's plant in Harwell in the early
1960s.

Mr Benson, who was 73 when he died, worked for the company as a
welder for two years.  An inquest into his death, held at Bury St
Edmunds, heard that during the time of his work he was exposed to
asbestos as he carried out his job.  This included when he used
protective clothing.

The inquest was told that Mr Benson became unwell in February this
year.

A bioposy confirmed that he was suffering from mesothelioma, a
disease generally associated with asbestos fibres.

He died at home on September 27.

A post mortem examination showed that his death had been caused by
the disease.

At the inquest Dr Dan Sharpstone, assistant deputy coroner for
Suffolk, recorded a conslusion that the 73-year-old died as a
result of industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Melbourne House Riddled with Fibro Razed in Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a vacant house has
been destroyed in a suspicious blaze in Melbourne's east.

The single-storey weatherboard house on Boronia Road, Vermont was
well alight when fire crews arrived just before 3.30am.

Fortunately for fire crews the house was located on a large piece
of land with no other homes nearby.  It had been vacant for some
time with windows boarded-up and both electricity and gas
disconnected.

Firefighters took almost one hour to bring the blaze under
control, with special precautions needed due to the presence of
asbestos.  Very little of the house remains, the damage bill
estimated to be $200,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Discovery Halts Work on Peters Store
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Huddersfield Daily Examiner reported that asbestos has been
found in a former shop unit which will become part of new premises
for Huddersfield department store Peters, in Huddersfield,
England.

Work was halted on neighbouring units at the Packhorse Centre in
Huddersfield after a survey revealed asbestos boards in a wall.

However, managers at the centre say the asbestos was not disturbed
and there is no danger to the public.

Asbestos is only a risk if fibres are released into the air.
Asbestos dust can cause the lung cancer mesothelioma.

David Heathcote-Smith, manager at the Packhorse Centre, said
asbestos was routinely used in construction during the 1970s when
the centre was built.

Peters is moving from King Street to the centre's former Bargain
World store and RSPCA charity shop next door.

Mr Heathcote-Smith said a survey had found asbestos in the wall in
the RSPCA shop and worked was stopped while the Health & Safety
Executive was informed.

The Bargain World premises -- formerly Argos -- were not affected
and contractors would be back there.

Specialists will remove the asbestos but the operation is only
expected to take a couple of days and Peters remains on schedule
for a December opening.

Peters announced plans to move from King Street in early October
as the four-storey building was becoming expensive to maintain.
It hopes to trade from both premises over the busy Christmas
period before the old store shuts in January.

The Kingsgate Centre has also revealed plans to extend and create
a new centre with a cinema and six restaurants.

The new Peters store will sell a similar range of goods while a
coffee shop with outside seating area will be opened in the old
RSPCA unit.

David Whittle, of Peters, said asbestos had been detected during
exploratory checks and a specialist would be visiting the site to
assess the situation further.

Peters still hopes to begin trading on December 1 and Mr Whittle
said: "It's just one of those things.

"This may delay matters but at the end of the day this has to be
managed and dealt with properly to make sure everything is safe
and secure."

The Packhorse Centre was opened in 1971.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Agency Says Low Fibro Threat From Hospital
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Stephens, writing for ABC News, reported that the North-West
Hospital and Health Service says an abandoned hospital building
containing asbestos on Mornington Island, in Queesland, Australia,
poses a low risk to a remote Indigenous community.

Tests carried out in September by the Mornington Shire Council
found the 40-year-old building contained asbestos, confirming
previous tests done in 2009.  The council said the abandoned
building was a play area for children but had now been boarded up.

The North-West Hospital and Health Service's chief executive, Sue
Belsham, said the service was now working with the local council
and Queensland Health to remove the building.  She said the risk
to the community was very low, although the building would have to
be carefully demolished.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Grossly Under-Recognized in Spain
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that a
team of health researchers in Spain have uncovered evidence of
"gross under-recognition" of the problem of malignant pleural
mesothelioma in the country.

The newly-published study, was conducted by the Ministry of Health
in Madrid and the Department of History of Science at the
University of Granada. According to the report, although asbestos-
related occupational cancers like mesothelioma were added to the
Spanish list of occupational diseases in 1978, "there are no full
accounts of compensated cases since their inclusion".

The goal of the study was to analyze the number of asbestos-
related cancers that had been recognized as stemming from
patients' occupations. The researchers analyzed the incidence of
mesothelioma by year, economic activity, and occupation and
compared the mortality rates of mesothelioma and work-related lung
cancer to rates in the rest of Europe.

The study found that, between 1978 and 2011, 164 asbestos-related
occupational cancers were recognized in the country -- an average
rate of 0.08 cases per 100,000 employees. Given that the case rate
of mesothelioma was higher in every other EU country, and as high
as 7.32 per 100,000 employees in Norway, the researchers conclude
that the problem of mesothelioma is seriously under-estimated and
under-compensated in Spain.

"Under-recognition rates were an estimated 93.6% (males) and 99.7%
(females) for pleural mesothelioma and 98.8% (males) and 100%
(females) for bronchus and lung cancer," concludes Montserrat
Garcia-Gomez of the Ministry of Health, one of three authors on
the paper. Dr. Garcia-Gomez and his colleagues are calling for
more investigation of work-related mesothelioma and lung cancer
cases for a better understanding of the impact of asbestos on the
country's health.

Asbestos has seriously impacted the health of many European
countries. As in the U.S., asbestos was widely used as an
insulation and building material from as early as the 1920s until
the 1970s and 1980s when it was publically connected to
mesothelioma. While the incidence of mesothelioma and other
asbestos-related illnesses is slowly declining in the U.S., it
continues to rise in many countries with peaks not expected until
2020 or later. The UK and Australia currently have the world's
highest per-capita mesothelioma rates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACT Cabinet to Rule on Contribution to Clean-Up
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lenore Taylor, writing for The Guardian, reported that the
Australian Capital Territory federal cabinet will consider a
substantial contribution to the estimated $1 billion cost of
buying and demolishing up to 1,000 Canberra homes that had loose-
fill asbestos insulation pumped into their ceilings in the 1960s
and 70s.

The ACT government and more than 40 families who have been forced
to leave their houses have been waiting for months for the federal
government's decision before a program of acquisition and
demolition can proceed.

The commonwealth originally funded a clean-up of the asbestos in
the late 1980s and 90s, checking thousands of houses and removing
asbestos where it was found.  But in mid-2013 loose-fill asbestos
was again found in a house, and it became clear the original
program had in many cases not successfully removed the fibres,
which remained in the walls and was sometimes contaminating living
areas through cracks or openings.

ACT chief minister Katy Gallagher has urged the prime minister to
make a decision on the asbestos -- originally pumped into the
homes by an operator called Mr Fluffy.

Gallagher has said she let Tony Abbott know "that there's a lot of
worried people sitting in homes that need some certainty about
their future".

Public service minister senator Eric Abetz is leading the federal
response on the issue.  A spokesman said: "The government takes
asbestos-related issues very seriously. The minister has been
working closely with the ACT government and affected homeowners to
help progress a solution to the Mr Fluffy issue."

The federal government commissioned the original 1980s
decontamination program, before the Australian Capital Territory
achieved self government, under a memorandum of understanding
containing a formula for sharing the costs.

Gallagher told Guardian Australia in August the commonwealth had a
clear responsibility.

"The commonwealth has significant responsibility here, and that's
because they were the governing entity when this business was
allowed to operate in the territory," she said.

"Now that we know 20 years on that there are still ongoing legacy
issues then ultimately I don't think it's an issue the
commonwealth can wash its hands of."

Gallagher said the original memorandum was a "pretty good
framework to be operating under".

The ACT government has said it hopes to recoup some of the cost of
purchasing and demolition through the resale of land.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Teachers' Death Sparks Complaint in School
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh McGhee, writing for DNAinfo.com, reported that the deaths of
two teachers at a Little Village school, in Chicago, from cancer
has some parents complaining about asbestos in the building and
worried that it contributed to their deaths.  And teachers as well
as parents at the school are complaining about chipped paint,
leaky ceilings, strange aromas and cockroaches in classrooms.

"The school has not been well maintained, so the paint, the walls
and the drywall are falling apart. The paint is chipping off, when
it rains some of the rooms get watered on, and the problem is they
just half fix it. They'll fix it but they won't fix it all the
way," said Alexandra Villasenor, 30, who has two kids at Maria
Saucedo Scholastic Academy, 2850 W. 24th Blvd.

One of the teachers who died of cancer was Margaret Williams. She
died Oct. 8.

CPS officials said inspectors found that asbestos levels in parts
of the school where children are present were "in good condition
overall."  But inspectors discovered exposed asbestos materials in
other parts of the school.

"CPS' facilities team is working on a plan to remediate the
issue," CPS spokeswoman Lauren Huffman said.

"Chicago Public Schools' top priority is the safety and well-being
of its students, teachers and staff. Our facilities team routinely
monitors each of our buildings for any unsafe conditions, which
includes inspection for anything which could pose a health threat.
We do not believe that the conditions at Saucedo present a health
hazard to any students, staff or visitors of the school," Huffman
said.

Villasenor, though, maintained the school poses a risk to
students' health.

"With the children being in school all day for eight or nine
hours, they're breathing all this. Mold, asbestos . . . and it's
just not healthy for them, especially the kids that have asthma or
problems breathing," said Villasenor.

While Villasenor wasn't sure if mold or even asbestos was the
cause of the teachers' deaths, she echoed the concern of multiple
parents that it could've been a factor, especially since they were
employed at the school for multiple years.

"That's what's raising the concern. Not that they died because of
it, but that this had something to do with it. That's just the
question," she said.

Built in 1912, Saucedo's age, combined with changes to the CPS
janitorial staff, could be a factor in the mess, said John Kugler,
a field representative for the Chicago Teachers Union.

Kugler received a list of 22 complaints, ranging from issues about
the school's cleanliness to concerns about cancer. He brought the
concerns to the Board of Education last week.

Angelica Gamino also has two kids at the school and said aside
from a leaky roof the school is in good condition, though she she
still had concerns.

"A lot of parents became concerned after the passing of our two
teachers. Other parents said they just wanted to make sure"
conditions in the school were not a factor in the teacher's
deaths, she said.

Gamino and other parents got some of the answers they were looking
for at a community forum focusing on safety around the school.
During the meeting, parents were told the school had conducted an
asbestos test through a private investigator and that the school
had passed, though the full results would not be disclosed to the
parents until a later date.

Saucedo Principal Isamar Colon referred all questions to CPS. A
spokeswoman for Ald. George Cardenas, whose 12th Ward includes the
school, said the alderman's office was unaware of complaints.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Gov't Appeal from Fibro Ruling Unlikely
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Times of Malta reported that the government is not expected to
appeal against a European Court of Human Rights judgment that
ordered it to pay EUR226,000 in compensation to 19 dockyard
workers poisoned by asbestos.

The ECHR found last July that the government "knew or ought to
have known of the dangers arising from exposure to asbestos at
least as from the early 1970s".

A decision delivered by seven judges, including former chief
justice Vincent DeGaetano, said the former workers, whose rights
to life and respect for private and family life were violated,
should be compensated.

The government has three months to file an appeal before the Grand
Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Opens Up Evidence in Garlock Ch. 11 Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reported that federal bankruptcy Judge
George Hodges in February took a bold step against asbestos
litigation fraud, and the good deeds continue. The North Carolina
jurist has decided to unseal all the evidence in his high-profile
asbestos case.

Asbestos claims drove gasket-maker Garlock Sealing Technologies
into bankruptcy in 2010, and the tort bar demanded the company
hand over $1.3 billion. Judge Hodges allowed for discovery into
some of the claims and issued an opinion skewering the plaintiffs'
lawyers for a "startling pattern of misrepresentation." He
detailed how the tort bar was essentially double-dipping -- filing
claims with outside asbestos trusts in which they blamed non-
Garlock products for their diseases, even as they blamed Garlock
in court.

On Oct. 16 the judge announced that he will now make public all
the evidence in the proceedings. He said he shouldn't have agreed
to a trial bar demand that he seal the courtroom at times when
Garlock presented evidence. "The hearings should have been opened
to the public," he explained, since it would have enabled "the
public to evaluate the Court's decision based on all of the
evidence rather than on simply part of it."

The plaintiffs' lawyers were especially eager to keep under seal
the details of settlements their clients have won from the
nation's asbestos trusts, as well as personal injury
questionnaires that likely show the lawyers are lodging
conflicting claims. That evidence will be another month in coming,
but stay tuned. Sunshine is the best asbestos fraud disinfectant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bags Containing Toxic Dust Left at Wash. Street
----------------------------------------------------------------
KREM.com reported that a called wondering why plastic bags
containing asbestos had not been removed from street in Spokane,
Washington, after they had been illegally dumped.

The woman said six bags were left along 32nd and Eastern overnight
in Spokane County.

KREM 2 on Your Side discovered that illegal dumping calls are a
"level three" calls for law enforcement, meaning they take a back
seat to calls of immediate violence.

Authorities said the only time an illegal dumping case qualifies
for a "level one" call, would be if the material leaked posed an
immediate health risk to people.  They said asbestos does not
qualify because it is only harmful if it is rapidly disbursed and
breathed in up close.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shiozaki Apologizes to Plaintiffs in Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Times reported that Health, Labor and Welfare Minister
Yasuhisa Shiozaki has apologized to the plaintiffs in two suits in
which the Supreme Court held the government responsible for
failing to prevent factory workers from being exposed to asbestos.

"I offer my most sincere apology to everybody. . . . Some
plaintiffs have died halfway through and I am deeply sorry," he
told a group of 12 plaintiffs and relatives of deceased workers
who visited his office.

The apology came after the top court ruled Oct. 9 for the first
time that the government was responsible for failing to prevent
factory workers from being exposed to asbestos.

The ruling finalized the Osaka High Court's decision last December
ordering the government to pay about JPY330 million in
compensation to 30 plaintiffs who were either plant workers being
treated for respiratory illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos
or relatives of workers who have died of such illnesses.

In the other case, the Supreme Court reversed an Osaka High Court
ruling in August 2011 rejecting the plaintiffs' claims and sent
the case back to the high court to determine compensation.

The government said it will promptly settle the pending suit and
consider reaching a settlement with plaintiffs that have filed
similar lawsuits as well as people who have suffered health
problems as a result of working at asbestos factories in areas
other than Osaka.

Shiozaki said at the time that the government is seeking to
compensate former laborers who worked at asbestos factories
between 1958 and 1971 and developed diseases caused by asbestos,
as well as their families.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wants Garlock Suit Moved to NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reported that attorneys for
Belluck & Fox LLP asked a North Carolina federal judge to transfer
to New York a bankruptcy adversary proceeding that accuses the
firm of engaging in racketeering activity while representing
asbestos personal injury clients, arguing the alleged underlying
misconduct occurred there.

Belluck & Fox asked U.S. District Senior Judge Graham C. Mullen to
transfer Garlock Sealing Technology LLC's suit to the Southern
District of New York because it would be a more convenient forum
to litigate the case.

The case is Garlock Sealing technologies LLC et al v. Belluck &
Fox, LLP et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00118 (W.D.N.C.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Penn Resident Calls for Probe in Fibro Debris
--------------------------------------------------------------
Precious Petty, writing for The Express-Times, reported that an
Emmaus woman urged East Penn officials to pursue a criminal
investigation of who dumped asbestos siding and other construction
debris on Wescosville Elementary School property.

Nancy Hill became the latest in a string of people to call for
police involvement in the matter, as well as for East Penn to
reveal which school district employees decided to bury the debris
after it was discovered in summer 2013.

The Environmental Protection Agency regulates the disposal of
materials that contain asbestos. Disposing of such materials
anywhere other than a licensed landfill is illegal.

With the exception of Lynn Donches, the board has focused on
cleaning up the debris rather than who dumped it outside the Lower
Macungie Township school and how it came to be buried. No one
knows how long the debris sat before its discovery and the odds of
linking the discarded materials to an individual, company or
construction site are slim, some school directors have said.

Superintendent J. Michael Schilder said the debris was cleaned up
in early October and cost $640 less than the district anticipated.
An EPA representative was present during the process, he said.

None of the materials unearthed lent any clues as to who dumped
the debris, Schilder said. So unless the board changes its
position, he considers the matter closed.

After the superintendent learned the debris had been buried in a
clay-lined hole on Wescosville Elementary property, he began
making arrangements to have it removed. The school board on Sept.
8 hired A.L.M. Abatement Services LLC at $17,835 to clean up the
debris and TCI Environmental Services Inc. at $600 to have an
inspector on site during the process.

Prior to the cleanup, Schilder said the EPA and the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection were satisfied with East
Penn's plan for handling the debris and neither expressed interest
in an investigation of who dumped it. In addition, representatives
from a certified asbestos management firm assured him the
materials did not pose a health risk to students or staff, he
said.

Echoing comments by others who've advocated for police
involvement, Hill said merely cleaning up the mess is not enough.
"What kind of message are we sending our children? Illegal is
illegal," she said.

Those who dumped the debris, not district taxpayers, should foot
the bill for its removal, she said. East Penn employees who
mishandled the matter in 2013 should be held accountable, as well,
Hill said.

Schilder, who joined the district in July, said those involved
with a decision to bury the debris have since left East Penn's
employ and it's not clear they knew the materials contained
asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Says UK Co. Must Face Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for Law360, reported that a Rhode Island
state judge has denied defunct British manufacturing company
Turner & Newall an early win in two asbestos-related worker
wrongful death suits, finding the company's insurance coverage
hadn't been exhausted, so a bankruptcy plan doesn't prevent the
cases from moving forward.

In an Oct. 24 order denying motions for summary judgment filed by
T&N, Justice Alice B. Gibney ruled that the exhaustion of a U.K.-
based insurance plan known as the "Hercules policy" would prompt a
discharge from bankruptcy court, thus lifting the automatic stay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hennessy Must Arbitrate Attys' Fees From Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reported that the Seventh Circuit
ruled that a cost-sharing agreement between Hennessy Industries
Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.,
forces the parties to arbitrate a dispute over attorneys' fees
stemming from asbestos-related personal injury claims the car
parts manufacturer settled.

Reversing a lower court's finding that arbitration wasn't required
for the dispute, the three-judge panel held that the CSA mandates
arbitration of any dispute requiring interpretation of the deal --
such as Hennessy's claim for damages against National Union.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gravedigger Accused of Burying Fibro in Cemetery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam King, writing for The Bucks Herald, reported that a former
gravedigger accused of illegally burying hazardous asbestos waste
at Aylesbury's Tring Road Cemetery, in England, has pleaded not
guilty.

Robert Taft, 61, allegedly dumped the controlled waste, which also
included roofing sheets, in the cemetery while working as a
manager for Aylesbury Town Council back in June 2010.

Council officials discovered the asbestos in 2012 and an
investigation was launched into what town clerk Keith Gray called
a 'disgraceful act'.

The authority was forced to bring in specialists to dispose of the
waste legally and test the ground for contamination.

The clean-up operation is thought to have cost taxpayers more than
GBP11,000.

Mr Taft, of Westcott, is being prosecuted by Buckinghamshire
County Council under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.  He is
accused of having 'deposited or knowingly caused or knowingly
permitted to be deposited controlled waste, namely waste including
asbestos roofing sheets and mixed waste in sacks, on land known as
Aylesbury Cemetery, at which no Environmental Permit was in force
at the time of the deposit'.

Mr Taft pleaded not guilty to the charge on August 13.

A plea and case management hearing will take place on November 26
at Aylesbury Crown Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: County Crews Clean Up Illegally Dumped Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briana Bermensolo, writing for KREM.com, reported that Spokane
County, Washington, crews that handle hazardous waste material
cleaned up dozens of trash bags that were illegally dumped off
32nd and Eastern as a precaution.

Most bags contained some type of construction material that looked
similar to asbestos.

"There's guys in hazmat suits out here doing it so I saw that and
thought well maybe there's something worse in the bags than what
we thought," said Pike Brant and resident near the illegal dumping
area.

County officials have to wait for the lab results to find out what
was in the bags, but crews said the likelihood that there is
actually high levels of asbestos in the bags is relatively low.

Two on Your Side looked into the response for the messes in your
neighborhood and found out that it all depends on the types of
materials that were dumped.

Most cases of illegal dumping are categorized as level three
calls, which means they are low on the priority list, especially
if no one is in immediate danger.

Even though the hazardous material was dumped all over the County
neighborhood, experts said it was not instantly hazardous towards
people or wildlife unless it broke apart and was inhaled up close.

In the situation, the vast majority of the material remained in
the bags and the rain dampened most of the material, which meant a
lower level call.

If anyone is caught in the act of illegal dumping, they are
subject to a $1,000 fine or up to three months in jail.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Outraged Over Illegally Dumped Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynda Nicol, writing for Daily Record, reported that unscrupulous
and callous workers dumped a load of potentially lethal asbestos
in a lane at Thorntonhall, in Scotland.  It was the second load
dumped in a fortnight and the fourth in a couple of months.

Elizabeth Watson, of Gateside House, said she came across the
illegal dump as she returned home.  It was lying in the middle of
the road.

Since then a neighbour had moved it out of the way of passing
traffic so it would not be further broken up, sending its lethal
fibres into the atmosphere.

Elizabeth said a neighbour had been forced to report another
illegal cargo of asbestos, dumped in a lane near her home on
October 16, to the council, who had rapidly sent out a specialist
team to remove it, at a substantial cost to the local authority
and through it to local council taxpayers.

"Whoever is doing this doesn't care about the danger and
inconvenience they are posing to anyone else, far less the eyesore
they are causing to the environment," she told the News this week.

"All they obviously care about is their own pockets.

"These illegal dumps could easily be found by children out for a
walk who wouldn't know it was dangerous to go near it."

And she urged anyone who saw any vehicles in the area flytipping
to take a note of their registration number and report them to the
police and council.

Head of fleet and environmental services for South Lanarkshire
Council, Shirley Clelland, said: "We were advised of the material
that has been dumped and our investigation is ongoing.

"We would encourage members of the public to report incidents of
material being dumped and if possible to pass on information
relating to the individuals and vehicles involved."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Approved for Care Facility
---------------------------------------------------------
Ty Rushing, writing for Newton Daily News, reported that one
hurdle has been cleared in Jasper County, South Carolina's efforts
to have the former Jasper County Care Facility, 5245 Liberty
Avenue in Newton, demolished.

At a meeting of the Jasper County Board of Supervisors, the board
approved a nearly $30,000 contract with Ankeny-based REW Services
to remove the remaining asbestos from the facility.

"This place has been closed down for 10 or 15 years, and I think
this will be the last thing keeping us from our final step as far
as tearing the building down -- getting what little bit of
asbestos inside of the building out and removed so we can move
forward when we are ready to," said Adam Sparks, Jasper County
maintenance director.

Terms of the deal indicate REW will remove asbestos from all areas
for the facility ranging from the the window seals to the floor
tiles, Sparks said. He also added no county employee will have to
clean up the facility prior to the removal process since it is
also included in the contract.

The care facility was last actively used by the county in 2000.
Since then, the land around the area has been used for various
purposes -- a most recently by the I-Green Learning Center --
which shut its door last year.

Joe Brock, board chairman, said one thing that slowed the process
of knocking down this structure was the land being used by other
organizations. With I-Green's departure, the current board began
acting upon the 2009 board's report for asbestos removal, he said.

"I'm really happy about the $30,000 there. We didn't know what it
would be, and with the mess out there on top of it, this is doable
here," Brock said.

A start date for the project has not been set yet.

In other business, Jasper County Treasurer Doug Bishop updated the
board on the county's projected local option sales tax revenues
for the upcoming fiscal year.

"In the past it's went up just a little bit," Bishop said. "Last
year's total was $1,225,700.67. The projection this year is
$1,288,960.62 for an increase of $648 . . . right now, I know you
guys are getting your budgets together, but it looks like it will
maintain at a static level for the next year."

Bishop also presented the board with his office's semi-annual
report, which he said showed the county's finances were strong.

"You guys did a great job. I'd like to thank all the department
heads and elected officials for toeing the line again. It looks
like we are good to go for another six months," Bishop said.

According to the report, the county had a little more than $38
million in expenditures and $37.8 million in revenues for the
2013-2014 fiscal year. The county has a fund balance of $17
million as of June 30.

Another item of business approved by the board was the upcoming
elected official and employee paid holiday schedule. Eight
holidays were selected and employees and officials will get two
days off for the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SDRC, Owners Say Fibro Handling 'Best Practice'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Sollars, writing for Warwick Daily News, reported that the
Southern Downs Regional Council (SDRC), in Australia, and Rose
City Shoppingworld owner the McConaghy Group have issued
assurances that asbestos removal on the centre's demolition site
has complied with regulations.

The Daily News received several calls from concerned parties about
an alleged lack of proper safety controls since work demolishing a
range of buildings has begun.

The work comes ahead of a planned $40 million expansion of the
centre, with the buildings now gone including the former McDougall
and Sons offices and the older half of the Plumbs Chambers site.

Work on the old Club Hotel has started.

Callers expressed concern that workers appeared to not be wearing
proper protective clothing when handling asbestos from a number of
downed structures and that asbestos fibres were being blown around
the Warwick CBD and adjacent Leslie Park.

Concern was also expressed at the work when the CBD was packed
with locals and visitors attending the Leslie Park markets and the
Rodeo Street Parade.

One worker, clad in ordinary workwear, was this week observed
wetting down parts of structures with a garden hose.  It was
understood at least two complaints had been made to Workplace
Health and Safety Queensland but the agency was unavailable for
comment.

But a council spokeswoman confirmed they had received two
complaints from "contracting businesses", alleging "incorrect
removal of asbestos".

"As a result council's Workplace Health and Safety and
Environmental officers visited the site," the spokeswoman said.

"They spoke to the supervisor and were satisfied work was in
accordance with council requirements and did not need to refer the
complaints to State Workplace Health and Safety.

"Council officers noted that warning signage and dust barriers
were in place and hosing down of the area where an excavator is
working to suppress dust was occurring.

"Plastic-lined bulk industrial skip bins were onsite containing
asbestos material -- the bins are covered with plastic prior to
their removal from the site and transported out of the council
area."

The spokeswoman said council staff also noted, prior to the
complaints, that contractors wearing suitable protective clothing
and breathing masks "were removing potential asbestos material
from buildings prior to their demolition".

Work on the site is expected to be completed by the end of next
week but could take an extra week if anything unforseen occurs.
It is expected that on completion the asbestos removal process
will need to be signed off by council.

A spokesman for the McConaghy Group said their demolition
contractors were complying with all health and safety regulations
in regards to asbestos removal.

"Satisfactory air monitoring has been performed," he said.

"Council is satisfied with all procedures in place."

The Daily News emailed a series of questions to Gold Coast-based
demolition contractor Bastemeyers but no response had been
received by time of printing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Defense Attys Give Up Jurisdictional Fight
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that roughly one year after Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs took
the bench as Madison County's asbestos judge and made several
well-intended strides to improve the "national" docket, defense
attorneys have given up on arguing that cases are being filed
improperly in the jurisdiction after four similar motions were
denied earlier this year.

According to recent filing numbers, 90 percent of the 656 new
cases filed so far this year come from states other than Illinois,
which is consistent with Madison County's well-established
pattern.

Of the 10 percent, or 66, cases filed by Illinois residents, only
three were actual Madison County residents.

"It seems to be business as usual in Madison County," defense
attorney Brian Huelsmann of HeplerBroom said.

Huelsmann said the future of the Madison County asbestos docket
relies heavily on how it handles forum non conveniens hearings,
which are pursued to ensure that more cases involve local
residents rather than out-of-state claimants.

However, he said the court "made it pretty clear" what its
position is on forum non conveniens arguments in May when it
denied motions in four separate asbestos lawsuits alleging lung
cancer in favor of plaintiffs from California, Utah, Texas and
Tennessee.

Since the requests were denied, there haven't been any other
hearings on the topic.

Huelsmann explained that defendants tried taking steps towards a
more manageable docket by seeking more appropriate jurisdictions,
but added that continuing to file forum non conveniens motions
"would seem like a waste" of time and effort.

"He made a pretty good sign of how he was going to deal with forum
motions," Huelsmann said.

He added that defendants haven't been filing mass numbers of forum
non conveniens motions with the intentions to appeal any denials
because it would only burden the appellate and supreme courts.

In the four denied motions for forum non conveniens, Stobbs
concluded that the defendants failed to sufficiently argue that
Illinois is inconvenient for all parties involved.

The defendants, which include 12 companies, took the county's
congested asbestos docket into consideration when arguing the
appropriateness of this jurisdiction.

The local asbestos docket rose significantly from 325 new asbestos
filings in 2006 to 1,678 new filings in 2013, making the county
the "epicenter" of asbestos litigation according to the American
Tort Reform Association.

The defendants also noted the county's growing concern of forum
shopping, especially with the recent influx of lung cancer cases.

They claim the Napoli, Bern, Ripka & Shkolnik firm, which
represents these plaintiffs, is a key player in forum shopping.

Since opening its local office in 2012, the New York-based Napoli
firm's filing numbers spiked from 343 in 2012 to 548 in 2013,
making it the top asbestos filer in the county.

More specifically, the Napoli firm dominates the dockets' lung
cancer filings. More than 90 percent of the firm's 2013 filings
were lung cancer claims.

The defendants are concerned with Napoli's lung cancer cases
because lung cancer is most often caused by smoking and other non-
asbestos related causes, they say.

The defendants contended that if all lung cancer patients were to
file asbestos lawsuits, the mass filings would threaten to
"overwhelm the docket, swamp the court and crowd out court
resources that would otherwise be available to actual Madison
County residents."

"The consequences of mass lung cancer filings on asbestos dockets
would be staggering," the defendants argued. "Madison County's
asbestos docket is not prepared or equipped to handle a new wave
of litigation that could come from the filing of large numbers of
lung cancer cases."

Shortly after Stobbs denied their requests, the defendants
appealed to the Appellate Court of the Illinois, Fifth Judicial
District.

The defendants argue Stobbs' orders denying the forum non
conveniens motions is a "clear abuse of discretion" because the
case has no relevant connection to Illinois and renders the forum
non conveniens doctrine a "dead letter" in cases involving
numerous defendants, which applies to nearly every asbestos case
filed in Madison County.

Defense attorney Lisa LaConte with Heyl Royster said forum non
conveniens is a "very significant" issue defense attorneys have
tried to address at various times and in various ways over the
last 10 years of asbestos litigation in Madison County, ranging
from their actions in filing motions and the efforts to get
standing orders and trial docket orders revised.

"The defendants have taken a multifaceted approach to the issue,"
she said.

However, because Madison County has not yet shed its reputation as
a "national" docket, defendants have resorted to taking
opportunities to resolve cases when they are in the best interest
of their clients.

"Out of necessity, defendants will need to take a harder look at
what's being filed," LaConte said. "If they resolve a case, then
they need to resolve cases that are significant."

LaConte and Huelsmann agree that forum non conveniens rejections
aren't entirely to blame for Madison County's large, attractive
asbestos docket.

"I think that forum isn't the singular issue in defeating the idea
that Madison County is a magnet jurisdiction, but it certainly is
very important," LaConte said.

Huelsmann explained that when forum non conveniens motions are
denied, it results in more filings, which leads to a larger number
of trial settings.

"That is where it all stems," he said. "If the cases are not
getting dismissed on forum, they get trial settings."

However, LaConte and Huelsmann didn't anticipate much hope for
improvement when it comes to seeking a more appropriate
jurisdiction for out-of-state claimants in the nation's epicenter
of asbestos litigation.

"It'd like to be able to tell you that things are different than
six months ago," Huelsmann said, "but it seems like things are
staying here."

"Without a commitment to dramatically reduce the number of trial
settings," LaConte added, "and an equal commitment to making sure
that we are spending the resources of the county and all the
parties on cases that really belong in Madison County, I don't see
that there's going to be a lot of change in the current
situation."

Requests for comment by plaintiffs attorneys were all left
unanswered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate Can't Sue Reinsurers in Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reported that a New York state
appellate court tossed Colgate-Palmolive Co.'s claims against
reinsurers National Indemnity Co. and Resolute Management Inc. in
a countersuit seeking OneBeacon America Insurance Co.'s coverage
of legal fees in underlying asbestos lawsuits, finding that
Colgate had no contractual relationship with the reinsurers.
In an unanimous ruling, the five-judge panel reversed a lower
court's denial of a motion to dismiss all of Colgate's
counterclaims against the reinsurers. The panel ruled that Colgate
cannot pursue its claims against the reinsurers because Colgate
only holds policies with OneBeacon and is not party to OneBeacon's
contracts with its reinsurers.

"Moreover, without language in a reinsurance agreement indicating
that the reinsurer intends to be directly liable to the insured,
the reinsurer has no obligation to the original insured," Judge
Helen E. Freedman wrote in the opinion. "Here, the reinsurance
agreement contains language specifically providing that ... no
third party has any rights under the contract."

OneBeacon's reinsurer National Indemnity and its affiliate
Resolute Management adjust Colgate's policy claims and indemnify
OneBeacon for claims, according to the decision.

Colgate alleged that OneBeacon's relationship with NICO and
Resolute created a conflict of interest because they serve a dual
role as both the reinsurer of OneBeacon's liability and the claims
adjuster, according to the judges.

Colgate claimed that National Indemnity and Resolute Management
wanted to settle the asbestos cases to minimize legal expenses,
although Colgate wanted to defend the cases to deter copycat
lawsuits, according to the decision.

The judges' ruling ends Colgate's breach of contract claim and
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim
against National Indemnity and a claim for tortious interference
against Resolute.

"Based on the total absence of a contractual relationship between
Colgate and the counterclaim defendants, we reverse and dismiss
the remaining counterclaims," the opinion said.

The dispute stems from OneBeacon and Colgate's opposing choices
for which law firm would defend Colgate in personal injury
lawsuits filed in 2008 alleging that the company's talc products
contained asbestos. After Colgate spurned OneBeacon's choice and
picked Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as defense counsel,
the insurer sued Colgate for allegedly violating its insurance
policies by refusing to keep OneBeacon in the loop on the asbestos
litigation. OneBeacon claimed it shouldn't have to cover Colgate's
defense costs, according to the decision.

Colgate then launched counterclaims alleging OneBeacon chose firms
with conflicts of interest and interfered with the defense of the
asbestos litigation, including National Indemnity and Resolute
Management as counterclaim defendants.

The panel also dismissed Colgate's statutory claim that Resolute
Management violated Massachusetts state law, which allows parties
to bring a private right of action over losing money because of
deceptive conduct in commercial dealings. The judges said that New
York state law governs the contracts in the dispute.

Representatives for the parties did not respond to immediate
requests for comment.

OneBeacon is represented by:

         George R. Hardin, Esq.
         Arthur A. Povelones Jr., Esq.
         Henry T.M. Lefevre-Snee, Esq.
         HARDIN KUNDLA MCKEON & POLETTO PA
         110 William Street
         New York, NY 10038
         Tel: (212) 571-0111
         Fax: (212) 571-1117

Colgate is represented by William G. Passannante, Esq. --
wpassannante@andersonkill.com -- at Anderson Kill PC.

National Indemnity Co. and Resolute Management Inc. are
represented by Michael J. Garvey, Esq. -- mgarvey@stblaw.com --
Bryce L. Friedman, Esq. -- bfriedman@stblaw.com -- Mary Beth
Forshaw, Esq. -- mforshaw@stblaw.com -- and Summer Craig, Esq. --
scraig@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The case is OneBeacon America Insurance Co. v Colgate-Palmolive
Co, case number 651193/11 in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, First Department.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Argue on Role of Daubert Factors
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that toxic tort experts are in dispute over the proper employment
of the Supreme Court's Daubert ruling in regards to determining
the sufficiency of evidence of causation and when it's appropriate
to address admissibility in asbestos cases.

The dispute arose out of an article written by Wake Forest
University School of Law Professor Michael Green and The
University of Houston Law Center Professor Joseph Sanders titled
"Admissibility Versus Sufficiency: Controlling the Quality of
Expert Witness Testimony in the United States," which was
presented at a Widener University School of Law Symposium.

Their article discusses the idea that beyond the basic factors
established by Daubert, sufficiency of the evidence is important
when determining whether expert testimony should be allowed.

In Daubert, the Supreme Court established four non-exclusive
factors to determine whether expert testimony met the threshold of
scientific knowledge:

-- The known or potential rate of error;

-- Whether the hypothesis of the plaintiff's theory was subject to
testing;

-- Peer review and publication; and

-- Whether the plaintiff's premise had received general acceptance
in the scientific community.

Professor Aaron D. Twerski and 2014 graduate Lior Sapir of
Brooklyn Law School wrote an article for the Widener Law Journal
titled "Sufficiency of the Evidence Does Not Meet Daubert
Standards: A Critique of the Green-Sanders Proposal," in response
to the article.

"Their thesis is that what courts have been doing by purporting to
follow the dictates of Daubert is deciding issues of admissibility
with little regard for the Daubert criteria, but rather based on
the sufficiency of the evidence to infer a causal connection and
the harm alleged," Twerski and Sapir wrote.

Green and Sanders defended their arguments in a reply to the
opposing professors, stating that Twerski and Sapir are "concerned
that employing a sufficiency analysis to determine the
admissibility of expert testimony will dilute the rigor of a
Daubert analysis. The formal structure of Daubert, including
apparently its four factors, will better keep frivolous or weak
cases from being submitted to the jury."

The professors agree that judges are less likely to overturn a
jury verdict than they are to rule against the admissibility of an
opposing side and that Daubert appropriately permits screening
cases at the pretrial process.

However, according to Green and Sanders' arguments, they claim
some of the Daubert factors are "largely inappropriate for
determining the admissibility of a scientific expert's opinion on
causation" in an asbestos case.  They clarify, stating that the
Daubert factors are only unhelpful in toxic tort cases as they are
"irrelevant to the analysis required."

Green and Sanders argue that in its subsequent opinions, the
Supreme Court "turned its attention away from these factors and
toward the question of whether the expert's testimony . . . is
adequately supported by the data upon which the expert relies."

In other words, courts are requiring experts to have "good
grounds" for their opinions, which is congruent with a sufficiency
approach to expert testimony.

Green and Sanders explain that "party control of experts" and
"widespread use of jury decision makers" lead judges to monitor
the reliability of expert testimony in order to avoid "junk
science" from influencing decisions.

Twerski and Sapir believe Green and Sanders misconstrued the
"major thrust" of Daubert by switching from the formality of
Daubert's factors to a more flexible sufficiency standard.  They
further argue that Green and Sanders seeks to have the courts use
the standard for summary judgment when making Daubert
determinations regarding admissibility of causation evidence. The
summary judgment standard holds that "if there is any evidence
from which a reasonable inference can be drawn, the issue is for
the jury."

Twerski and Sapir disagree on this approach, saying the test for
summary judgment is not demanding.

"Summary judgment does not demand, as Daubert does, that expert
testimony meet 'exacting standards of reliability.' The summary
judgment standard is far less demanding and allows the weakest of
inferences to suffice to defeat the motion," Twerski and Sapir
wrote.

In their response, Green and Sanders note that their fellow
professors are taking the stance that the cost of false positives
outweigh the costs of false negatives when it comes to ruling on
the sufficiency of evidence.

However, raising the issue of the burden of proof, they explain
that the standard of proof "reflects the conventional wisdom that
erroneous judgments in favor of plaintiffs are of equal cost to
erroneous rulings for defendants."

Simply put, there are two stages in which the standard of proof
plays a role: the admissibility determination and the sufficiency
stage. Twerski and Sapir believe their concern should be addressed
at the time admissibility is addressed while Green and Sanders
think the sufficiency stage is more appropriate.

"The problem with the Green and Sanders thesis is that they place
the cart before the horse," Twerski and Sapir wrote in support of
their approach. "It is only when we determine that something
qualifies as 'evidence' that we can raise the issue of its
sufficiency."

In other words, the test for reliability must "stand on its own
bottom."

Modifying Twerski and Sapir's words, Green and Sanders stated that
"what must stand on its own bottom is the admissibility
determination."

"Our modest goal is to argue that when courts make these
admissibility determinations they often think about the issue on
sufficiency-like ways and, moreover, that this is a good thing,"
Green and Sanders wrote.

While Twerski and Sapir agree with the opposition that the Daubert
criteria may not be as important as tests of reliability, they
argue that the message from Daubert is that a court must have a
high degree of confidence in the integrity of scientific evidence
before it qualifies for consideration to be utilized in
litigation.

On that note, they explain that the Daubert standard to determine
whether evidence is adequate is "anything but minimal." The four
criteria exemplify that the Supreme Court "expected courts to be
demanding gatekeepers and that the era that preceded Daubert . . .
was over."  They add that the Daubert ruling "seeks a high level
of belief in the integrity of scientific evidence."

Green and Sanders defend their arguments by explaining causation
is necessarily proved by circumstantial evidence, which is left
for the jury to decide whether it is credible in the case.

"Thus, there may be circumstantial evidence that simply is not
sufficiently strong to justify a reasonable inference of causation
or other factual matters thereby justifying removing the case from
the jury," they wrote.

"If they were acting as judges in a Daubert case, Twerski and
Sapir might well require stronger scientific evidence to support
an expert's causation opinion than others might," they continued.
"But, that difference among judges' perspectives, influenced by
their commitment to, and confidence in the jury, has long
existed."

Ultimately, Green and Sanders argue that "far too many" courts
have contorted the Daubert factors "beyond recognition" to fit
their intentions regarding the strength of the scientific evidence
on causation and that it is difficult to describe how high the
admissibility or sufficiency threshold should be when courts are
presented with facts of the case.

However, the two do agree with Twerski and Sapir that "this
threshold adapts depending on the quality of the evidence
reasonably available to the party with the burden of proof. The
law is rife with adaptations to the burden of proof when evidence
is not reasonably available. Traditionally, courts rebuffed
efforts to use statistical evidence, such as they virtually demand
today in toxic torts in the form of epidemiology."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Residents Express Concern Over Mt. Manresa Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Porpora, writing for silive.com, reported that a retired
police officer, Beth Malone of Rosebank worries every day about
her health after working at Ground Zero in the weeks following the
September 11 terrorist attacks. And just in October, she had
another health-related concern, when asbestos was being removed
from two buildings at Mount Manresa, in New York, to make way for
250 townhouses.

The Rosebank resident says she suffered a burning sensation in her
nose for two weeks.

"I was walking my dog and all of a sudden I had a chemical
sensation in my nose.  My nose felt really weird as if I were in a
room where there had been extermination done. For two weeks my
nose had the chemical sensation, and I had headaches, a nasal drip
and cough," said Ms. Malone, who lives nearby the former Mount
Manresa Jesuit Retreat House property in Fort Wadsworth.

Although the city Department of Buildings has issued a stop work
order for all construction and land-clearing at Mount Manresa,
asbestos removal in two of the site's buildings is allowed to
continue.

After two doctors' visits, the sensation in Mrs. Malone's nose
subsided. But she said she is concerned she could have a health
issue related to the asbestos removal.

And she's not the only nearby resident expressing health concerns.

"When they started doing the work (at Mount Manresa) I had the
windows open. A lot of dust came in, and for days I couldn't
breathe. I was coughing and I wasn't feeling well," said
Guillermina Nunez, who lives on Merle Place, facing Mount Manresa.

However, physicians say it's likely that the symptoms residents
are exhibiting are allergic reactions.

"Usually asbestos causes a long-term issue. It's usually from
having been in a closed environment where the asbestos gets in and
causes a local inflammatory reaction in the lung. And it's
exacerbated in people who were smokers. In the open environment
(asbestos) typically doesn't do that," said Dr. Theodore Strange,
associate chairman of medicine at Staten Island University
Hospital.

But Ms. Nunez does not agree. "This is very unhealthy and
dangerous; I already have neurological problems and this doesn't
help me," she said, noting she is immune compromised since she
suffers from fibromyalgia and reflex sympathetic dystrophy
syndrome.

And other residents who have not exhibited any health issues still
worry about air quality near the site.

"I'm worried about the long-term affects of the asbestos, but you
can't prove anything until multiple years later," said Elena
Kokakis, who lives on Narrows Road North in Fort Wadsworth.

Dr. Strange explained that it is possible, but unlikely that a
person could develop an acute problem from trace amounts of
asbestos in the air. "Could you have an allergic reaction with a
cough? If there was a high enough level of asbestos in the air,
I'm sure you could, but it's not commonly reported . . .," he
said. "Asbestos doesn't cause an acute problem usually, other than
an allergic react."

He added: "Asbestosis is a disease that can lead to lung cancer.
But that's over many years, and having been exposed to quite a bit
of asbestos."

STOP WORK ORDER

Although the city Department of Buildings has issued a stop work
order for all construction and land-clearing at Mount Manresa,
asbestos removal in two of the site's buildings is allowed to
continue.

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.

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
townhouse units there.

The Savo Brothers had initially 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 October 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.

CALLS FOR AIR MONITORING

Despite this, the Committee for Mount Manresa is calling upon the
city to step in to conduct air monitoring in people's homes, said
Barbara Sanchez, secretary for the group. The group is also
questioning the credentials of the air monitoring company, Easy
Inc., hired to take air samples during the work.

"I looked up their information on their website and on the
Department of Labor website and the phone number they list does
not work. There is no address listed on the Labor Department's
website for the company," said Ms. Sanchez.

Advance attempts to reach the company went unanswered.

However, the DEP spokesman said Easy Inc. is licensed by the state
Department of Labor, and the air samples they are collecting are
analyzed by an independent laboratory that is certified by the
state Department of Health, as well as by city DEP staff.

A DEP spokesman said the only protocol for asbestos abatement
under the city's regulations is that contractors must use air
monitoring companies that are licensed by the state Department of
Labor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Unearth Fibro in NSW Homes
-------------------------------------------------------
The Armidale Express reported that a resident in New South Wales
is worried about his health after asbestos was discovered on his
public housing property.

The man, who did not wish to be named, said he was concerned the
material had contributed to his reoccurring sinusitis.

"I had been thinking that it was a reaction dust mites, but now I
think it might be something more sinister," he said.

The asbestos was uncovered when contractors removed a retaining
wall, but didn't notice the sheet of buried asbestos according to
the manager of the block of flats, Homes North Community Housing.

A spokesman for the company said it was the first he heard about
the asbestos.  Since then the housing group has had the sheet
removed.

The resident said he was concerned the fibre could have affected
his health.  But Armidale based building project manager John
Davidson said  health problems from asbestos can take 30 years to
manifest.

Still the resident was worried about how many more sheets might be
underground on his property.

"If there's one piece there would probably be more pieces buried
underneath," he said.

Home North Community Housing asset manager Ben Ireland said the
sheet was only a danger if it was broken and the situation was
only potentially dangerous when the resident  broke off a sample
to confirm the material contained asbestos.

While asbestos is notorious for a string of cancers and deaths Mr
Davidson said if it was undisturbed it wasn't the menace people
thought it was.

"There are literally millions of houses in Australia that have
this stuff on the walls and it's of no danger. . .unless you play
with it," he said.

"It's when you start drilling a hole in it or cutting it up with a
saw, that's when the particles are exposed."

He said while asbestos could be dangerous the risk didn't justify
the "hysteria" that surrounded it.

"[In Sydney] you'll drive past lots and lots of places that have
lots and lots of asbestos and it's really not an issue," he said.

Mr Davidson examined a sample of the asbestos sheet the resident
took and said it very deteriorated but couldn't say how old it
was.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Sues Council Over Husband's Fibro Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Echo reported that the widow of a former councillor
who died of asbestos-related cancer is suing a council.

Anthony, or Tony, Westgarth, of Leadgate, near Consett, County
Durham, in England, died aged 69 in 2011 just days after being
diagnosed with mesothelioma, the aggressive cancer of the lung
lining that is caused by exposure to asbestos dust and fibres.

Father-of-one Mr Westgarth, a member of the former Derwentside
District Council at one time, told his wife Ann that he was
exposed to asbestos while a joiner for the old Consett Urban
District Council between 1968 and 1969 and at John Roxby Surtees
Limited, where he worked from 1971 to 1973.

Specialist law firm Irwin Mitchell has launched legal proceedings
against Durham County Council, which took over from the urban
district and Derwentside councils and has admitted a breach of
duty, and John Roxby Surtees Limited, which is no longer trading.

Mr Westgarth was responsible for removing and making replacement
asbestos soffits for local council houses and regularly cut
asbestos boards with hand saws and fixed them to houses using
nails.

At John Roxby Surtees Limited he refurbished old prefabricated
buildings.

Isobel Lovett, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell's Newcastle office, said: "Mesothelioma is an aggressive
illness which causes a significant amount of distress for victims
like Tony who worked in environments where asbestos dust was
commonplace.

"Sadly, many employers fail to act to protect their workers from
the consequences of exposure to asbestos, despite knowing how
dangerous it is.

"We hope that by issuing court proceedings we can finally secure
justice for Tony's widow and son so they can begin to accept their
loss."

In October 2011 Mr Westgarth died of a heart attack related to his
mesothelioma and the pressure it was putting on his lungs.

Mrs Westgarth, 68, said: "My son and I have really struggled to
come to terms with the loss of Tony.

"His deterioration in such a short space of time came as a shock
to us and we feel completely lost without him.

"We hope that with help from our legal team at Irwin Mitchell we
will finally gain justice for Tony so we can honour his memory
after losing him so quickly and in such a terrible way."

A county council spokesman said: "As these are live legal legal
proceedings it would not be appropriate to comment on this case."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Grants Judgment for 6 Fibro Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Pennsylvania appellate court has granted summary judgment
for six asbestos defendants in a case in which the primary witness
relied on his own "knowledge and belief" that the products at
issue contained asbestos.

Judge Jacqueline O. Shogan delivered the Oct. 22 opinion in the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirming the lower court's
judgment. Judges Victor P. Stabile and William H. Platt concurred.

Plaintiff Colleen M. Krauss appealed the judgment out of the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment
in favor of defendants General Electric Company, Georgia Pacific
LLC, CBS Corporatoin-Westinghouse, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Zurn
Industries and Trane US Inc.

Krauss filed the lawsuit on behalf of decedent Henry Krauss in
February 2006 and then filed a second suit in January 2007. The
cases were consolidated in May 2011.

Kraus claims the decedent was employed in the bricklaying trade at
various jobsites for varying lengths between 1978 and 1983 where
he was allegedly exposed to asbestos. As a result, the decedent
developed mesothelioma.

In November 2012, all the defendant appellees filed motions for
summary judgment, which were granted in January 2013.

Because the decedent was not deposed before his death, Krauss
claims the decedent's former co-worker Michael Morgan's affidavit
is sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact proving
frequent, regular and proximate asbestos exposure to products from
each defendant in the appeal.

In his affidavit, Morgan testified that he recalled products form
each defendant at the various worksites where he worked with the
decedent over the course of a five-year period.

However, he failed to provide specific evidence showing the
decedent was exposed to the specified products manufactured by a
particular manufacturer or supplier at a particular worksite.

The affidavit also fails to establish that the products even
contained asbestos.

"Morgan's affidavit asserts that 'all of the boilers, turbines and
pumps' identified in his affidavit were insulated with asbestos
products based on his 'knowledge and belief.' It however, provides
no specific evidence upon which he based his determination that
these boilers, turbines and pumps were insulated with asbestos
products," Shogan wrote.

Based on this argument, the appeals court concluded that Morgan's
statements provided in his affidavit that the products contained
asbestos did not derive from actual knowledge. Instead, the
affidavit is based on presumption and belief that the products
contained asbestos.

"Such statements are insufficient to show that there exists a
genuine issue of fact as to the existence of asbestos in these
products," Shogan wrote.

"Additionally, such statements do not present competent evidence
for the jury because it is speculative. A plaintiff cannot survive
summary judgment when mere speculation would be required for the
jury to find in plaintiff's favor," she added.

Because Morgan based his statements solely on speculation and
conjecture, the appeals court held that the affidavit is
insufficient as a basis upon which appellant's case can survive
summary judgment.

"It fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the
presence of a specific manufacturer's product at a specific
worksite where decedent worked, and fails to establish that
asbestos was present in those products in the various worksites.
Appellant is not entitled to an inference of fact based merely on
Morgan's unsubstantiated claims," Shogan wrote.

Furthermore, Morgan's affidavit failed to meet the frequency,
regularity and proximity test.

In regards to frequency and regularity, Morgan merely stated in
general that each of the decedent's jobs lasted roughly one week
or longer.

As for proximity, Morgan "does not identify the proximity to the
alleged asbestos-containing products with which decedent worked."

Therefore, the court concluded that Morgan's affidavit alone does
not create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary
judgment and affirmed the lower court's decision.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Firm Seeks to Transfer RICO Case to NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that an asbestos plaintiffs firm sued by Garlock Sealing
Technologies in a RICO lawsuit alleging evidence was withheld
while in the asbestos tort system is seeking to transfer its case
to a New York federal court.

Plaintiffs Garlock and Garrison Litigation Management Group assert
that the defendants committed fraud and engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity by allegedly failing to disclose certain
information in discovery when representing clients in asbestos
personal injury lawsuits, thus inflating settlements.

As a result, the plaintiffs filed several RICO lawsuits in the US
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

Belluck & Fox filed the motion to transfer the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Defendants in the RICO claim include Belluck & Fox, Joseph W.
Belluck and Jordan Fox. They claim that New York is a more proper
jurisdiction, arguing that the case concerns "the conduct of New
York attorneys representing clients in lawsuits in New York courts
against a company with its principal place of business in New
York, which was also represented by its own New York lawyers."

The action arises out of Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges' Jan. 10
ruling in favor of Garlock in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, ordering the gasket
manufacturer to put $125 million in an asbestos trust -- roughly
$1 billion less than what plaintiffs' representatives felt was
proper. In his decision, Hodges noted how attorneys had been
withholding evidence while pursuing claims against Garlock.

While evaluating Garlock's proper liability, allegations surfaced
that plaintiffs attorneys had engaged in "fraud, deceit and other
activities prohibited by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)" when settling asbestos plaintiffs'
claims with Garlock."

However, the defendants claim the purported misconduct allegedly
occurred in New York where the litigation took place.

"Indeed, virtually all of the conduct alleged in the complaint
occurred in New York, and not a single allegation concerns any
events in North Carolina," the defendants wrote.

In other words, they claim that apart from Garlock's bankruptcy
proceeding, the case has no connection to North Carolina and
should be transferred to New York.  They note convenience, stating
that all parties in the case are located in New York.

While the complaint alleges that Garlock is a North Carolina
limited liability company, it "conspicuously omits any allegations
as to Garlock's principal place of business," the defendants
argue. They add that Garlock's website shows the plaintiff's
headquarters and principal place of business is in New York.

The defendants deny the assertions in the lawsuit and believe
critical evidence to prove their allegations include documents
including at least three New York law firms -- meaning the
necessary evidence is located in New York.

Additionally, the defendants note that 10 of the 11 cases
identified in the complaint were filed in the same New York court.

Furthermore, the defendants allege a number of key individuals --
including Garlock's attorneys in the underlying litigation,
Garrison employees and expert witnesses -- are all located or work
in New York.

Because most of the witnesses could not be compelled to appear at
a trial in North Carolina, they claim that if the case was
transferred to New York, subpoena power would be available.

"The inability to compel the testimony of some of these key
witnesses -- including, among others, the attorneys for Garlock
who negotiated the settlements at issue in this RICO case and who
can testify to what Garlock knew about the plaintiffs' exposures
-- would severely prejudice defendants' case," they wrote.

The defendants allege that may of the non-party witnesses are
hostile towards them and that it would be prejudicial to try the
case in North Carolina.  They allege that transfer to New York
could reduce the expenses of all parties.

"In sum, every single one of the factors courts weigh when
considering whether to transfer a case for the convenience of the
parties strongly supports transferring this action to the Southern
District of New York," the defendants wrote.

"The presumption that cases 'related to,' a bankruptcy proceeding
ought to be litigated in the bankruptcy's 'home' forum is simply
not enough in this case to counterbalance the overwhelming weight
of the factors above, all of which support transfer," they added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found on NZ Arts Precint Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbie Napier, writing for stuff.co.nz, reported that land
earmarked for Christchurch, New Zealand's performing arts precinct
has tested positive for asbestos.

The Armagh St site is owned by the Government but is being used by
construction firm Naylor Love as a staging area and car park for
personnel working on the Isaac Theatre Royal.  It purchased the
vacant land late last year after any potentially contaminated
buildings had already been demolished, some as early as 2010.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) tested for
asbestos recently as a precursor to building part of the
performing arts precinct.  Two of 20 preliminary test samples
contained low levels of asbestos in the surface material of the
lot -- made up of demolition rubble, gravel and dust.

Christchurch Central Development Unit deputy director Baden Ewart
said it was only legally obliged to test the site before building
began.  It was already in use by theatre workers when Cera took
possession. "Cera wanted to continue to support the theatre
restoration," he said.

Naylor Love chose to spray a suppressive compound on the gravel
lot, rather than shut the site down.  The site was sprayed and
Cera advised there should be minimal disturbance to the ground
until the theatre works were complete.

Naylor Love chief executive Rick Herd said the company tested
build sites before beginning work but the lot in question was not
being built on.  The company had worked with Cera to allow the
spray treatment to go ahead and would continue to co-operate.

"We have been in contact with our staff and subcontractors to
advise them of the preliminary results," he said. "The safety of
our workers will dictate all of our decision making."

Staff had been using the site regularly for months and those
approached by The Press this week were not aware of the test
results or spray treatment solution.

Some were concerned there might be health implications but
detailed test results were not yet available to determine any
risks.  The spray compound was a heavy-duty, long-lasting dust
control chemical.

"The experts tell us it has proven effective in other situations
where testing has returned positive results for asbestos in low
levels," a Cera spokesman said.

Ewart said it was expected the site would be fenced off for
remediation when the theatre was complete and before precinct
building began.

Workplace health and safety body WorkSafe NZ said no report had
been made regarding asbestos on the Armagh St site. Notification
was only required 24 hours before building started and was not
required for non-build sites.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Slots Trigger for Madison County Docket
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that as Madison County's asbestos docket continues to make
headlines as one of the largest dockets in the country thanks to
an unbalanced scale tipping heavily towards out-of-state
claimants, the jurisdiction's approach to trial slots is being
called into question by defense attorneys.

"If we could just get some relief with the trial slots, that would
help with the jurisdiction" said Lisa LaConte, defense attorney
with Heyl Royster.

LaConte said trial slots and forum non conveniens practices work
together to create an attractive docket in Madison County.

"It doesn't boil down to one issue," she said. "All issues build
on each other."

Calling trial settings the "trigger," LaConte explained that as
long as the local court maintains its current practice of setting
sometimes 50 cases or more for trial on any given week, more
lawsuits will be filed there. As more cases are filed and less
cases are transferred to more appropriate jurisdictions, more
trial slots are required to resolve the number of cases. It's a
vicious circle, she said.

"If you were not pushing so many cases through the trial process,
it would make this a more equal jurisdiction," LaConte said.

"There would be no real incentive to bring them here, because
there is no fast track to a trial date."

Defense attorney Brian Huelsmann of HeplerBroom agreed, saying
that when outside cases remain in Madison County, a larger number
of trial settings are the result.

"That is where it all stems," he said. "If the cases are not
getting dismissed on forum, they get trial settings."

"That has been the issue for a long time."

LaConte said forum non conveniens motions are one of the primary
reasons Madison County's asbestos docket is one of the largest in
the nation, but the most significant problem is the number of
cases set for trial every year.

Huelsmann explains that as of Oct. 15, 820 first-time trial
settings and 254 cases continued from the 2014 trial docket have
been set for 2015. That makes a total of 1,074 cases set for trial
for 2015 with two-and-a-half months to go in 2014.

Because there are still several trial dockets this year, more
cases will get bumped to 2015, raising the number for next year.

"I expect there will be another 100 or more cases getting
continued to next year, as well," he said.

That would put 2015 on track for roughly 1,100 to 1,200 trial
settings in a jurisdiction where there are 30 trial dates and 20
judges, only one of whom presides over the asbestos docket.

Looking even further ahead, there are already 256 first-time trial
settings for 2016 so far.

Huelsmann said that most would argue that 99 percent of the cases
settle, especially in Madison County where there has been an
average of one trial per year for the last decade.

However, he anticipates the number of cases going to trial could
increase, especially as lung cancer cases begin to reach their
trial dates.

"If there are more trials, I don't think the county is going to be
able to handle it," he said.

Madison County saw a record number of new filings in 2013 just
before a drop in filings so far this year, primarily due to the
decrease in new lung cancer cases.

As of June 30, there were 656 new cases filed in its asbestos
docket, a drop from last year's record of 793 mid-year filings.

However, the filing numbers are still on track to top 1,000, which
would still make 2014 the third-largest year for number of
filings.

Huelsmann explained that if the filing numbers maintain their
current pace, it averages out to roughly 35 cases set for trial
per week with potentially 50 or 60 cases towards the end of next
year.

"While the numbers may not be as much as before when we saw more
cases, we are still going to see more filings," Huelsmann said.

"Even if the filings are slowing, the pace at which those cases
are being set for trial is not," LaConte added.

LaConte agreed that the golden question isn't what is wrong with
Madison County's trial slot system, it's how to fix the problem.

"The real key question is, well how do you fix it and what does
that really mean?" she said.

She believes that to fix the docket, the court would need to
lessen the number of cases set for trial each week to a more
reasonable number and the attorneys involved would need to abide
by those limits.

In an effort to control the popular docket, Associate Judge
Stephen Stobbs has been trying to narrow the number of trial slots
each week in accordance with the standing order, which established
that a maximum number of 19 cases could be set for trial on a
given jury week -- significantly lower than in previous years when
more than 50 cases would be set for trial each week.

"It's something that the defense bar has been pushing for him to
stick to the limits in the standing order," LaConte said.

LaConte added that the current system is difficult to manage for
both sides as plaintiff and defense attorneys have a tough time
preparing all of the cases, which can also be costly.

In fact, she said defendants incur much of their expenses after a
case is set for trial, because it requires depositions and
discovery.

"There's a lot of activity once there's a trial date," LaConte
said.

Furthermore, all of that activity must be done for each case set
that week.

Huelsmann said Stobbs created the priority system to help parties
prepare for cases that could actually go to trial each week.
Plaintiffs attorneys were told to label their top five cases.

"Some firms are pretty good about it," he said. "While other firms
come in and rattle off 15 or 20 cases."

However, LaConte said she and several other defense attorneys are
advocating for narrowing the standing order down to 10 cases per
trial docket to improve efficiency and aid in preventing outside
cases from flooding the jurisdiction.

During the HarrisMartin Midwest Asbetos Conference in St. Louis on
Sept. 18, plaintiffs attorney Sara Salger of Gori Julian &
Associates also addressed how Stobbs is working to bring the
asbestos docket to a more manageable position by decreasing the
number of cases set for trial.  She explained that Stobbs has
implemented a new removal method which requires plaintiffs
attorneys to remove a case from the trial docket in order to add
another case.

However, Salger said removing cases from the trial docket has
created a "backlog" as cases are getting pushed back.

As more cases get continued so living mesothelioma claimants can
have their cases addressed in a timely manner, a mountain of
postponed lung cancer and wrongful death cases are building up,
which all must eventually be resolved.

"At some point in the future, we are going to have a group of
cases that are going to need to be addressed and that have been on
file for a period of time," LaConte said.

Furthermore, LaConte also said that making sure cases set for
trial involve local residents will help improve the docket's
functionality, which just ties back in to the connection between
forum non conveniens motion practices and trial slots.

"In general, there is an inclination to make decisions that
continue to create a jurisdiction that is a magnet for out of
state claimants," LaConte said.

Requests for comment by plaintiffs attorneys were all left
unanswered.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Linked to Lung Cancer that Killed Teacher
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Macpherson, writing for Rossendale Free Press, reported that a
former market trader who served his national service on Christmas
Island when the H-bomb was first detonated died from asbestos
related lung cancer, an inquest heard.

Alan Tattersall, of Broadway, Helmshore, England, served on this
island during the nuclear bomb test and was protected only by a
pair of sunglasses and shorts, Burnley Coroners Court heard.

The former England Schoolboys and Burnley FC, Preston North End
and Bolton Wanderers goalkeeper later worked as a plumber and came
into contact with asbestos during his work, the inquest heard.
His health quickly deteriorated over a four-week period and he
passed away on July 13 this year aged 79.

The inquest heard how Mr Tattersall was 'always a very fit and
active man' and only had a scan for cancer two days before his
death.

A statement from his wife Jean Tattersall told how he served the
majority of his national service on Christmas Island and was
present for the first official H-bomb drop.  When he returned he
worked as a plumber in Rawtenstall before later working for
Rossendale Council for 15 years.

The work included breaking up old cast iron baths, central heating
systems, old boilers and drains and gutters, the inquest heard.

Mrs Tattersall said in her statement: "Like everyone in that era
Alan never wore protective clothing as the dangers of asbestos
were not known.

"His work overalls were often full of dust that needed shaking
before washing

"He worked in environments where asbestos was around and would
have been therefore exposed to dusts and fibres."

Mr Tattersall, who was a big cricket fan and well known at
Rawtenstall Cricket Club, smoked during his life and from 1972
worked as a market trader.

Speaking at the inquest his son David said his death came as a
shock.

He said: "It was a very quick deterioration. He was quite a normal
active father to being unable to walk a couple of feet and that
was in about four weeks."

Pathologist Dr Mohammed Aslam said Mr Tattersall was up to five
times more likely to contract lung cancer if he worked around
asbestos and that could be exacerbated up to 90 times as he was a
smoker too.

Assistant coroner Mark Williams ruled that cancer caused his death
as a result of industrial injury.

Speaking after the hearing David said: "It's not the outcome we
expected at all.

"We thought it would be natural causes.

"He always used to talk about his footballing days and was very
fit and active. It was a real shock when it happened and so
quickly. It was totally unexpected by everyone."

His sister Julie added: "It's a loss for everybody in our family
and extended family. He was very much the head of the whole
family.

"We are still coming to terms with it. This day can perhaps give
us a little closure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suspected Toxic Dust Dumped in Nelson
------------------------------------------------------
Lancarshire Telegraph reported that a three foot high mound of
asbestos has been dumped in a Nelson street, in England.

Residents are concerned about the dangerous substance, which a
wagon tipped into Bank House Road, especially as there are
families living nearby and a nursery.

Residents in Leeds Road say that Bank House Road, at the back of
their street, has been plagued with fly tippers for years after
the council knocked down the houses there.

Only a couple of houses in Bank House Road remain occupied but the
surrounding streets are lived-in and despite numerous complaints
to the council, residents say the problem is getting worse.

Six council workers in white protective suits attended the scene
and put a cover over the asbestos and brought a huge skip, but as
yet, it has not been removed.

One resident in Leeds Road said: "This street has just been left
derelict after they pulled the houses down and rubbish is being
dumped here all the time. The state of it is awful. There's grates
falling down and holes all over the road. It's awful.

"But when a wagon showed up and just tipped a load of asbestos in
the road, I just couldn't believe it. It's getting ridiculous and
I've complained about it a number of times."

"It's a massive pile of asbestos. The winds are blowing and
Bradley Nursery is just there to the side of it. Who knows the
damage it could cause."

Pendle Council said that they did not know who was responsible for
dumping the asbestos there but that they would return to the
street to remove it completely as soon as possible.

Bradley ward councillor, Mohammed Iqbal said: "Dumping asbestos
here is just despicable. There's a lot of children in that area
and a nursery school nearby and it could be dangerous.

"There is an issue in that street with fly tipping and an issue
with the road itself. I am meeting on site next week with the
county council to ensure that something is done about it.

"In the meantime, the council need to get the asbestos removed
immediately and find out who was responsible."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Australian Hospitals Riddled With Toxic Dust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Peacock, writing for ABC News, reported that unions and
lawyers are warning that hospitals across Australia are riddled
with asbestos.

Tanya Segelov represented late asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton
and is still acting for sufferers of dust diseases.

"Hospitals throughout Australia were full of asbestos and many
remain full of asbestos," Ms Segelov told the ABC's 7.30 program.

"All of the steam pipes are wrapped in asbestos, in the ceiling
cavities there is asbestos sprayed.

"There are asbestos fire doors, it is in the boiler houses, it is
in the laundry.

"Wherever there was heat, wherever there is steam, there was
asbestos."

Annabel Crouch worked as a speech therapist at Sydney's Royal
North Shore Hospital for three decades.  Her doctor recently told
her she has the fatal and incurable asbestos cancer mesothelioma.
It is believed she contracted it from asbestos-lined service
tunnels under the hospital.

"We went up and down the tunnel 10 times a day," Ms Crouch said.

"And there would always be people working on it, the pipes,
there'd be plumbers doing things.

"No-one thought there would be asbestos or any danger.

"I mean, you do expect your work place is a fairly safe
environment, so it's a bit of a shock when you find out that a
hospital is full of asbestos.

"But of course in the last while I have learnt that many buildings
are full of asbestos."

Another of Sydney's major hospitals, Westmead, in the city's
booming western suburbs, closed its service tunnels earlier this
year after asbestos in them was disturbed earlier this year.

"A young untrained apprentice was cutting something he should not
have been cutting," CFMEU health and safety co-ordinator Michael
Preston said.

"But he wasn't warned or anything that there may have been
asbestos in the area."

Now only a select few are allowed into the tunnels, and they are
required to wear protective clothing and face masks.

Westmead Hospital chief executive Danny O'Connor acknowledged the
risk.

"There is asbestos in the tunnel but prior to the disturbance of
the lagging on the piping within the tunnel, all of the asbestos
was contained," he said.

"I'm not aware of any report that speaks of friable (dusty)
asbestos in the tunnels."

But two months ago, industrial hygienists PRESNA reported that
there was friable asbestos throughout the tunnels.  It found white
asbestos, brown asbestos and high risk blue asbestos on the
concrete columns, concrete surfaces and paths.

"The asbestos in the tunnels has been tested for the purposes of
whether it is airborne or not, so a series of tests have been
undertaken," Mr O'Connor said.

"All of the tests that have come back have not identified asbestos
at detectable levels."

'Lots of people at the hospital have probably been exposed'

The unions said it was not right.

"It just makes me angry that we are still dealing with this sort
of thing in 2014," Mr Preston said.

"[The] tunnel system underneath [the hospital] is riddled with
bonded and friable asbestos, pipes, brackets, lagging, all sorts."

He was also concerned the public may have been invited into the
tunnels.

"It's not a simple case of just the maintenance staff who've been
down through the tunnels," Mr Preston said.

"They've actually taken the TAFE students down there to have a
look at the pipe-work.

"They used to have open days for families, Halloween parties.

"They used to put up all these decorations and try to make it
scary.

"But nobody knew at the time what the actual scary thing was down
there -- the asbestos.

"I shudder to think that I could have taken my kids on a tour
through that place."

Ms Crouch has now lived with mesothelioma for two years and
acknowledged she is on borrowed time.

"No-one warned staff about there being asbestos and to take care,
or when renovations were being done," she said.

"My fear is that there are lots of people at the hospital who have
probably been exposed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Warned of Fibro at Halifax School
----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Atlantic reported that parents of students at a high school in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada, received an automated phone call
on the weekend, warning them about asbestos at the school.

About 700 students attend J.L. Ilsley High School in Spryfield.
John MacDonald was among the hundreds of parents who received a
call from the school.

"An automated voice message from the school saying that asbestos
had been found in the school and that it would be cleaned up,"
says MacDonald.

A major roofing project is underway at the school and debris from
the old roof fell into the library and audiovisual room.

"In the tar of the old roofing, there was trace asbestos, so it
wasn't free floating particles, it was in the tar that was used in
the old roofing," says Trish Smith, a spokesperson for the Halifax
Regional School Board.

Brendan Maguire, the MLA for the area, says his office was flooded
with calls after tests revealed there was about 5 per cent content
of asbestos in the old tar.

"I was concerned. Very concerned," he says. "I actually went up to
the school, I kind of snuck into the school myself and just took a
look around and there was work going on there."

The Halifax Regional School Board says the debris that fell into
the school from the roof was cleaned up on the weekend and air
quality tests were conducted to see if it was safe for students to
attend classes.

"It came up as there being nothing in the air and the school was
opened for business as usual," says Smith. "There were no traces
of asbestos in the air even after that debris had fallen and
before the cleanup happened."

MacDonald says he will be convinced of that only after he sees the
reports.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Grants Summary Judgment for Ingersoll-Rand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the asbestos multidistrict litigation court has ruled on
several summary judgment motions in a case in which the plaintiff
argued that asbestos from original component parts would have
still been present in equipment aboard Navy vessels during his
service.

Judge Eduardo Robreno delivered the Oct. 23 opinion in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff Kenneth McAfee was allegedly exposed to asbestos while
serving in the U.S. Navy from 1969 to 1991 and while working in
the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard from 1991 to 1993. He claims he
developed lung cancer as a result of his exposure.

The case was removed to the asbestos MDL from the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia in November 2013.

Robreno concluded that maritime law is applicable to the case
because the alleged exposures occurred while the claimant was
performing "sea-based" work.  He explained that in order to
establish causation under maritime law, a plaintiff must show that
he was exposed to the defendant's product and that the product was
a substantial factor is causing his injury.

"A mere 'minimal exposure' to a defendant's product is
insufficient to establish causation," he wrote.

McAfee contends that he identified sufficient product
identification and causation evidence to survive summary judgment
for each defendant.

Ingersoll-Rand & Co.

Robreno granted summary judgment for defendant Ingersoll-Rand &
Co., concluding that the plaintiff failed to identify sufficient
evidence of product identification and causation.

McAfee testified that he was exposed to respirable dust from
asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation used in
connection with Ingersoll-Rand compressors aboard various ships.

The defendant admitted that its compressors were designed and
intended to contain asbestos and that asbestos was required on
high temperature gaskets on its equipment.

In support of his argument, McAfee pointed to expert Arthur
Faherty's affidavit. He testified that "generally, if a company
supplied asbestos with its equipment, some of that asbestos was
always present unless the record shows that the asbestos installed
by the defendant was entirely removed" and "the removal of the
entire initial asbestos never occurred."

Robreno concluded that while there is evidence that McAfee was
exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation in
connection with Ingersoll-Rand compressors, there is no evidence
that the defendant supplied the asbestos-containing component
parts.

"Although plaintiffs point to expert evidence to support their
contention that some of the original asbestos material supplied by
Ingersoll was still present on the ship at the time of McAfee's
alleged exposure, this evidence is not only impermissibly
speculative, but fails to establish that McAfee was exposed to any
such asbestos still present on the ship (as opposed to other
asbestos supplied by other companies)," Robreno wrote.

"As such," he added, "no reasonable jury could conclude from the
evidence that McAfee was exposed to asbestos from a product
manufactured or supplied by defendant Ingersoll such that it was a
substantial factor in the development of his illness, because any
such finding would be based on conjecture."

General Electric Company and CBS Corporation-Westinghouse

Defendants CBS Corporation-Westinghouse's and General Electric
Company's requests for summary judgment were granted in part and
denied in part.  They both claimed that they had no duty to warn
about products or component parts they did not manufacture or
supply and, therefore, cannot be held liable.

In his deposition, McAfee testified that he was exposed to
respirable dust from asbestos-containing wire and wrapping.
Specifically, he alleges he was exposed to asbestos-containing
Westinghouse wires and wrapping on Westinghouse equipment. He also
alleges he was exposed to asbestos-containing wiring on GE gyros
and wrapping on GE equipment.  In support of his arguments, McAfee
again pointed to Faherty's affidavit, stating that some of the
asbestos would always be present.

Robreno held that because evidence supported the plaintiff's
alleged exposures to asbestos-containing wiring manufactured or
supplied by CBS and GE, a reasonable jury could conclude that
McAfee's exposure to the wiring was a substantial factor in the
development of his illness.  However, Robreno concluded that the
plaintiff failed to provide evidence that the defendants
manufactured or supplied the wrapping.  Therefore, Robreno denied
summary judgment with respect to alleged exposure to asbestos-
containing wiring but granted summary judgment with respect to
alleged asbestos exposure to the wrapping around the wiring.

John Crane, Inc.

Robreno also denied summary judgment for defendant John Crane,
Inc., leaving it to the jury to conclude whether or not the
evidence supports McAfee's allegation that the exposure was a
substantial cause of his injury.

McAfee testified that he was exposed to respirable dust from
asbestos-containing John Crane packing while performing repair and
maintenance work on various pieces of equipment on ships.

Guard-Line Inc.

Robreno denied summary judgment for defendant Guard-Line, Inc.,
holding that the plaintiff identified sufficient evidence to
support a finding of causation with respect to gloves manufactured
by the defendant.

McAfee testified that he was exposed to respirable dust from
asbestos-containing "Guard" gloves while performing repair and
maintenance work on ships.

Guard-Line denies manufacturing a product with a "Guard" logo and
argues that it cannot be liable for the "Guard" brand, which is
different than "Guard-Line."

The court disagreed, concluding that a reasonable jury could
potentially make the connection and determine that the exposure
was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

"Whether plaintiff's testimony identifying the gloves as 'Guard'
was a reference to gloves manufactured by defendant 'Guard-Line'
is a question of material fact for the jury to decide," Robreno
wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mom Dies Due to Fibro From Husband's Clothes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grimsby Telegraph reported that a wife who washed her husband's
work overalls died after being exposed to asbestos dust on them,
an inquest heard.

Pauline Wood, 67, of Barkhouse Close, Cleethorpes, in England,
died on February 9 of pneumonia because of malignant mesothelioma.

Her ex-husband, Elvin Wood, told the inquest at Cleethorpes Town
Hall in a statement that he was exposed to asbestos while working
for Humber Tugs for about 33 years from about 1973 or 1974.  He
said: "She shook out the overalls. This is sure to have released
asbestos dust into the air that she was breathing."

Mrs Wood's daughter, Joanne Cowan, told the inquest in a
statement: "Mum was a lovely person who was a good friend to many
and who would do anything she could to help others.

"We all loved her dearly and her death has left a huge void in all
our family's lives."

The inquest concluded that Mrs Wood died as a consequence of
exposure to asbestos arising from her husband's exposure to the
material in an industrial environment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer Didn't Exclude All Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that a Pennsylvania
federal judge was urged during a bench trial to find that asbestos
exclusions written into a pair of excess insurance policies issued
to General Refractories Co., which is facing tens of thousands of
asbestos-related lawsuits, did not exclude coverage for injuries
stemming from asbestos-containing products.

Michael Conley, an attorney with Offit Kurman representing GRC,
told U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno that it was
standard practice in the insurance industry in 1985, the time
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. issued the policies, to distinguish
between claims stemming from direct exposure to asbestos fibers
and exposure to asbestos-containing products.

"Asbestos is a fiber. It's a naturally occurring mineral," he
said. "That is a completely separate entity from asbestos-
containing products."

According to court records, the exclusion in the Aetna policies
applies to any "excess net loss arising out of asbestos."

The bench trial is the latest front in GRC's 10-year legal fight
to win coverage from its insurers for a wave of asbestos-related
claims it faces from plaintiffs who say they were injured after
being exposed to the company's asbestos-containing products.

In January, a jury hearing arguments in a separate phase of the
dispute sided with the insurers and rejected arguments that
Pennsylvania insurance regulators had made a policy of uniformly
barring exclusions for asbestos coverage between 1979 and 1985.

Separately, the company leveled arguments that exclusions in
individual policies at play in the litigation only covered claims
related to certain asbestos products and certain asbestos-related
injuries.

While the company has reached settlements with other insurers in
the dispute, Judge Robreno has been left to decide whether
Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., the successor to the Aetna policy
at issue in the bench trial, will be able to skirt liability based
on the exclusion.

According to Conley, the policy could be relied on to provide
coverage in as many as 60,000 pending claims against the company.

Conley pointed to a number of exclusions written into other
insurance policies drafted during the relevant time period which
separately disclaimed coverage for injuries stemming from both
"asbestos" and "asbestos-containing products."

Testifying on behalf of GRC, Locks Law Firm founder Gene Locks
said that defendants he'd sued on behalf of plaintiffs during the
late 1970s and early 1980s over asbestos-related injuries always
distinguished between whether they were a direct provider of
asbestos or a manufacturer of asbestos-containing products.

"The argument was always made, 'We work with asbestos or asbestos
fiber, but we don't sell asbestos or asbestos fiber,' " he said.
"They always tried to defend by saying that they had a limited
amount of asbestos in their products or that their products didn't
create the kind of dust that was created in the mining process."

Daniel Fitch, an attorney with Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP
representing Travelers, countered by noting that Locks had limited
experience with the insurance industry.

"You're talking about words that you used in a personal injury
litigation," he said. "You're not talking about insurance policy
language and what it meant."

Fitch said that a handful of example exclusions listing both
"asbestos" and "asbestos-containing products" and testimony on how
defendants handled claims in litigation were not enough to
establish that the industry had made a regular practice of
distinguishing between the terms.

"They haven't shown that in the insurance industry, with the
people who were writing these policies, that there was this trade,
custom and usage standard that altered the plain meaning of a word
like 'asbestos' so that it meant something other than what the
plain, ordinary meaning was as understood by the general public,"
he said.

Rather, he said that the exclusion was purposely drafted to be
construed in as broad a manner as possible.

"It's very simple: claims 'arising out of asbestos,' " he said.
"You can't get any broader than that."

Judge Robreno asked the parties to submit proposed findings of
fact and conclusions of law for his consideration in issuing a
ruling in the dispute.

The case was presented for GRC by Michael Conley, Esq. --
mconley@offitkurman.com -- at Offit Kurman.

The case was presented for Travelers by Daniel Fitch, Esq. --
dfitch@stradley.com -- at Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP.

The case is General Refractories Co. v. First State Insurance Co.
et al., case number 2:04-cv-03509, in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MV Miner Has More Fibro Than Thought
-----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reported that Nova Scotia's transportation
minister says asbestos levels found on a derelict ship stranded
off Cape Breton are almost five times more than what the federal
government estimated.

Geoff MacLellan says the company tasked with removing the MV Miner
has taken 30 tonnes of asbestos from the vessel to date -- far
more than the 6.6 tonnes of asbestos that federal reports said was
estimated to be on the ship.

MacLellan says a significant amount of diesel fuel has also been
found after a previous federal study said there was none left on
the vessel.  He says as a result, he will likely further plead the
province's case that Ottawa should contribute financially to the
effort to remove the bulk carrier, which he said was an
environmental threat to Scatarie Island, a provincially protected
wilderness area.  He says the government's goal is still to
complete the removal work, but that could change as could the
$11.9 million cost of the project because of the added work
involved.

The vessel ran aground on Scatarie Island after a tow line snapped
during transit to Turkey in September 2011.

The federal government's position has been that the ship isn't
blocking navigation nor contains any pollutants and the
responsibility for the removal lies with the MV Miner's owner,
Arvina Navigation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Governor Grants $1MM for Ambler Fibro Cleanup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Devlin, writing for The Times Herald, reported that Gov. Tom
Corbett of Pennsylvania recently announced a new state grant to
help clean up the asbestos contamination in the borough.

The Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
has awarded a $1 million Industrial Sites Reuse Program grant to
the Redevelopment Authority of Montgomery County for environmental
remediation and asbestos cleanup at the former Keasbey & Mattison
Company manufacturing facility.

"With investments in environmental remediation, Pennsylvania's
vacant and unused facilities are opportunities for new growth and
development," Corbett said in a press release. "Our partnership
with the redevelopment authority and Ambler will help resolve an
asbestos health hazard and open the door to future development."

According to the release, the funds will be used for asbestos
removal from steam tunnel piping and subsurface structures,
excavation and disposal of contaminated soil, excavation and
handling of asbestos containing material, installation of
geotextile membrane for ACM-free utility corridors and
installation of environmental cap.

RAMC has partnered with the Ambler Crossings Development Partners,
LP for environmental remediation on the project, the release
states. The developers plan to remediate the asbestos-contaminated
4.6-acre parcel and construct a 115-unit apartment building
totalling 134,205 square feet. The total cost of the project is
$3,295,000 with ACDP providing $2,295,000 in funds to support the
project, according to the release.

Officials in Ambler were pleased with the news and said it's a
continuation of a lot of work that has already begun.

Mayor Jeanne Sorg said the borough is excited to keep working on
projects that will continue to improve the borough.

"Smart development of the rail corridor that helps to remediate
old industrial brown fields will provide economic revitalization
and beautification to the borough," she said in an email.
"Redeveloping this area safely will also protect our borough and
the surrounding municipalities. This project is a continuation of
the great work done to rehab the Boiler House."

"The borough is very pleased to receive notice of grant funding
from DCED to assist in the clean-up for the reuse of the former
Keasbey and Mattison site," wrote Borough Manager Mary Aversa, via
email. "The residents of Ambler and the adjoining townships have
had the contamination in our municipalities for many years causing
blight and much concern to our residents. We hope to see continued
support from our government agencies, so we are able to move
forward, and work to have the asbestos permanently contained
and/or removed to assure the future safety of our residents, and
viability of our town."

John Zaharchuk, of Ambler Crossings Development Partners, LP, was
unavailable for comment as of press time.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Judge Claims Courthouse Gave Him Fibro Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported
that one of the more-than 350 asbestos plaintiffs in the New
Jersey state courts is a retired Passaic County Superior Court
judge, who claims he got cancer as a result of coming into contact
with asbestos at the courthouse during his time on the bench.

Amos Saunders, who retired in 2000 after 23 years as a judge,
alleges in court papers that he was exposed to asbestos throughout
his tenure, up to and including an asbestos removal project at the
Paterson, N.J., courthouse in the 1980s.

He and his wife, Janet Saunders, sued in Passaic County in April
2013 and shortly after, the case was transferred to Middlesex
County, where state asbestos litigation is centralized.  His
complaint in Saunders v. A.H. Environment says he has been
diagnosed with adenocarcinoma "as a direct and proximate result"
of "inhalation and ingestion of dust particles and fibers" from
asbestos products.

Adenocarcinoma is a type of cancer that can affect the lungs,
pancreas, esophagus and other areas of the body.  The defendants
are Passaic County, which owns and maintains the courthouse
building, and two companies allegedly involved in removing
asbestos from the structure.

A.H. Environment Inc. was allegedly the contractor for the 1983
project and Alaimo Group, successor to Richard A. Alaimo
Engineering Associates, was allegedly the consulting engineer in
charge of the operation, according to the complaint.

The complaint alleges all three defendants were aware of the
danger to those foreseeably exposed to asbestos but were negligent
with regard to "proper hygiene procedures" to ensure that toxic
chemicals and substances such as asbestos-containing dust were not
carried home on courthouse employees' persons and clothing.
A.H. Environment has not answered the complaint.

Alaimo, on the other hand, moved in January for summary judgment.
It asked the court to dismiss the claims against it based on the
statute of repose, given the 30 years between the alleged events
and the filing of the lawsuit.

Alaimo contended that statute sets a 10-year timeframe for suing
over damage related to improvements to real property, that it is
meant to protect design professionals involved in such
improvements and that the discovery rules do not apply.

Amos Saunders' opposition papers said ongoing discovery in the
matter had revealed that Alaimo was "substantially responsible"
for hiring A.H. Environmental to do the removal and that A.H.
performed negligently, resulting in the "release of friable
asbestos in the courthouse as well as on the persons and
possessions of courthouse personnel," including Saunders.

Saunders disputed in his opposition papers that the statute
applied or that a "botched asbestos removal" could be considered
an improvement to real property, rather than a repair or
replacement. Further, discovery was still under way and no
depositions had yet been taken.

Superior Court Judge Vincent LeBlon denied Alaimo's motion Feb.
28, without a written opinion.

The most recent case management order, entered July 24 by Judge
Ana Viscomi, who replaced LeBlon, set Oct. 31 as the deadline for
fact discovery, followed by a series of dates for service of both
sides' expert reports, culminating in a May 2015 trial date.
Saunders, who is now 80 and serves as of counsel to Carlet,
Garrison, Klein & Zaretsky in Clifton, N.J., did not return a
call.

All of the lawyers in the case declined to comment: Christopher
Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank, N.J., for
Saunders; Jeffrey Intravatola of Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst &
Doukas in New Brunswick, N.J., for Alaimo; and Laurence Maddock of
Waters McPherson McNeill in Secaucus, N.J., for Passaic.

Thomas Rumana, who served as a Passaic County judge alongside
Saunders and is now with Harrington and Lombardi in Wayne, N.J.,
recalled being moved to an old high school across the street while
asbestos was removed from the ceilings in the courthouse, but
said, "I never saw anything that alerted me to anything wrong in
my courtroom."

Jon Gelman, a Wayne, N.J., solo who does workers' compensation
law, said he was not surprised to hear of Saunders' suit, having
represented several Passaic courthouse employees in asbestos-
related claims.

"The irony of the whole thing is that the sentinel studies on
asbestos-related diseases" originated with a Paterson, N.J.,
doctor, Irving Selikoff, Gelman noted.

Saunders has been a member of the New Jersey Election Law
Enforcement Commission since 2008.

A 1958 graduate of Columbia University Law School, Saunders was
appointed to the bench by Gov. Brendan Byrne in 1977 and was
Passaic County's Chancery Division judge on general equity
matters, as well as sitting in the civil and criminal parts.

In paying tribute to Saunders on the floor of Congress on June 6,
2000, Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., whose district includes
Paterson, stated that Saunders was a "nationally respected expert
on the legal aspects of the sport of boxing" and handled many
high-profile boxing cases in his court, including those of boxing
promoter Don King. In 1997, the International Boxing Digest
magazine listed Saunders as number 16 in the list of boxing's 50
most influential people, Pascrell said.

Before becoming a judge, Saunders served in a variety of roles,
including private practitioner at a law firm, municipal court
judge, borough attorney and board of education attorney for the
Borough of Totowa. He also served as an administrative law judge
for the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Evergreen Demolition Paused For Fibro Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Azzo, writing for Daily Chronicle, reported that officials
in DeKalb County, Georgia, are testing six Evergreen Village
mobile homes for asbestos as part of a plan to have all residents
moved out by mid-December.

Testing for asbestos is an early step in the timeline for
Evergreen Village Mobile Home Park, 955 E. State St. near
Sycamore. The county purchased the flood-prone property for $1.47
million in April and have until June 30 to return it to open space
under a federal grant program.

Residents have 60 days from the day the county paid them for their
home to move out, although some have been given extensions until
December, said DeKalb County Assistant Planner Rebecca Von Drasek.

All residents must leave by April 30.

People will be moving out throughout November, said Paul Miller,
DeKalb County planning zoning and building director. Twenty
trailers have already been demolished, and 67 trailers are vacant,
Miller said.

By the end of this week, 70 units will have been tested for
asbestos and 51 will still need to be tested, Von Drasek said. Of
the units tested so far, about 11 will require asbestos abatement
or removal, she said.

After asbestos testing and abatement is finished, Evergreen
Village utilities such as water and electricity will be shut off
before demolition kicks into full gear, Von Drasek said.

"That will be a wonderful day. We're not there yet though," Von
Drasek said. "Our focus is on locating future housing and reaching
out to residents if they need our help. That's what we're doing
now."

The county has already submitted asbestos results with the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency for the units they've
tested and continue to do so as testing continues, Von Drasek
said.

There have been a lot of little things that the planning zoning
and building department has come across regarding Evergreen
Village, but the staff has done an outstanding job trying to keep
the project on course, said County Board Chairman Jeff Metzger.

The county is eager to get the Evergreen Village project over as
soon as possible, especially moving everyone into new homes so
that it won't have to worry about winter frost flooding or spring
flooding, Metzger said.

"Our hope, of course, is to have the project completed by the end
of this year," Metzger said. "But if it runs into the beginning of
next calendar year, it's still been a very aggressive schedule."

What's next

As soon as the county is finished with asbestos abatement,
utilities will be shut off and then all the mobile homes at
Evergreen Village Mobile Home Park will be demolished.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Canadian Public Building
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Baker, writing for Global News, reported that building
leased to the Fraser Health Authority in Port Coquitlam, in
British Columbia, Canada, is closed and their staff forced out
after finding asbestos on-site in October.

Staff, which includes public health nurses, members of the BCGEU
and a person from the Ministry of Children and Family Development,
reported their concerns over the toxic material found in the
Fraser Health Clinic at 226 Wilson at the beginning of October.

According to a spokesperson with the BC Nurses' Union, the nurses
were moved to the Newport Medical Clinic in Port Moody while a
crew tested the air and debris for toxins.

Four days later the staff was cleared by Fraser Health to return
to the Port Coquitlam clinic and informed the air sampling was
"good" but the results of the debris were still pending. Services
to the public were continued for nearly a week until the building
was closed again after questions about its structure.

The debris results, it turns out, came back positive for asbestos
and now, the building is undergoing a lengthy and expensive
decontamination process. And the staff said they're worried about
the effects of the asbestos on their health as well as their
patients.

Worksafe BC is now investigating and wants Fraser Health and the
City of Port Coquitlam to review the safety and structure of all
their buildings.

"Right now our officers are still engaged in asking them
questions, looking for information about their asbestos management
programs," said Al Johnson from Worksafe BC.

Johnson said Worksafe BC wants to know how comprehensive their
programs are and if they include all of their properties in the
process.

"Was this an odd exception or an issue that occurred for other
reasons," Johnson said. "Or is this a larger issue?"  According to
a statement from the City of Port Coquitlam to Global News, the
building is almost 50 years old and Fraser Health is responsible
for the operations and maintenance, while the city looks after the
structure (supporting walls, foundation, roof, exterior walls).

Each time the City was made aware of the issues, we promptly took
steps to remedy the situation to ensure the health and well-being
of the occupants. As a result of this latest incident, we have
engaged the appropriate experts, including structural and
environmental engineers, to provide the City with a sound course
of action. We will take the necessary time to come up with the
best solution as our primary concern is the future safety of the
building occupants -- The City of Port Coquitlam.

Fraser Health told Global News previous asbestos work was done in
2009 and 2012 and they will not reopen the building until the
environment is safe and clear of toxins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Aussie Hospital Sparks Staff Concern
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that staff at the Manning Base Hospital at
Taree, New South Wales, want to know how much asbestos there is in
the building.

Asbestos was used as a building material in many of the region's
hospitals before the late 1980's.

Unions now want more work done to remove asbestos from the NSW
hospitals.

General Practitioner and Visiting Medical Officer (VMO) at Manning
Base Hospital, Dr David Keegan, said hospitals should be safe for
patients and staff.

"If it's persons who are often unhealthy already, if they are
going to be exposed to asbestos, it could lead to long-term
negative health outcomes," he said.

"Asbestos death rates are rising, and it should be of major
concern to the public."

Dr Keegan, says more detail is needed on the amount and location
of asbestos.

"We would have to know where it is, what form it is in, is it in
an area of public access and is it therefore high risk?

"If it is in a public access area, it could be potentially
airborne."

Hunter New England Health says there is an asbestos register for
all hospitals, and clear risk-management protocols.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Riddled Hospital To be Demolished
--------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Jones, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that plans
to knock down an asbestos-riddled hospital and replace it with a
GBP2.5 million health unit have been approved.

Health bosses say it could take two years before the new building
to replace Heanor Memorial Hospital, in Derbyshire, United
Kingdom, is up and running.

The hospital has been closed to patients since September last
year, after the potentially deadly dust was discovered in a boiler
room during a routine inspection.  It meant clinics and services
had to be moved temporarily to Ilkeston Community Hospital.

At the same time, bosses at the NHS Southern Derbyshire Clinical
Commissioning Group said they were trying to find the "best way
forward" for the hospital.  Since then, several meetings and a
consultation have been held to decide on the hospital's future --
with about 400 people attending a public meeting about the issue
in January.

One option put forward was demolishing the hospital and Wilmott
Street health centre and replacing both with a new GBP2.5 million
building on the hospital site.

The governing body of NHS Southern Derbyshire -- the group
responsible for buying and overseeing healthcare for 525,000
people in Derby, Amber Valley and the southern part of the county
-- has given the green light to this proposal.

Andy Layzell, its chief officer, said: "We've put an enormous
amount of work into these plans -- trying to get people's opinions
and understand what they want from start to finish. And we
continue to work with people as the new health centre is being
designed and built.

"They feel an enormous amount of attachment for the old hospital,
and we respect that, but the feedback on these plans has been very
positive and we're so grateful and impressed by the way local
people have been involved in this process."

Mr Layzell said the new health unit would include the same
services plus new ones, although it would not have beds or be
equipped for overnight stays.  He said: "We expect that, if
everything goes to plan, we should expect to have a new health
facility opened in Heanor in early 2017 and have a fully-developed
demolition and construction plan which will meet this deadline.

"We have said from the start that any new building would take
around two years to build, once a decision about how to proceed
was made.

"Proposals still need to be finalised for how the services will
fit into a new building and we will work with local people to make
sure the design is both fitting for the town and practical in
allowing services to stay flexible in the future."

He said, in the meantime, the group aimed to bring back as many
health services as possible to Heanor. Blood testing has already
returned to the town and the group has organised two beds,
offering 24-hour, end-of-life care to patients for two weeks, at
Ashfields Care Home.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inspector Gets Probation in Fibro-Removal Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo News reported that the state inspector who admitted
negligence in monitoring a bungled asbestos-removal project in
Buffalo, New York, was sentenced to a year of probation.

Theodore Lehmann, 68, had previously pleaded guilty before U.S.
District Judge Richard J. Arcara to a misdemeanor charge of
violating the Clean Air Act.

Lehmann, who is retired from the state Department of Labor, is the
third inspector to admit guilt in a case that centered around a
botched asbestos abatement at the vacant Kensington Heights public
housing complex in 2009.

"I'm deeply sorry for any negligence on my part," Lehmann told
Arcara.

Lehmann's sentence is the result of a prosecution by Assistant
U.S. Attorney Aaron J. Mango, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
FBI and the state Department of Environmental Conservation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NSW Government Hunts for 'Mr. Fluffy' Dust
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Meers, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reported that the
New South Wales government is scouring NSW to uncover how many
homes may be contaminated with "Mr Fluffy" asbestos after it
emerged up to 20 North Sydney properties could have been insulated
by rogue operators.

This came a week after the federal government announced $1 billion
to buy and demolish Canberra homes filled with "Mr Fluffy".

Just a few kilometres away, 15 Queanbeyan property owners have
been left waiting for compensation for their contaminated homes.
The town is closer to the Canberra CBD than most ACT suburbs but
because it is in NSW owners will not receive any of the $1
billion.

There are 15 dwellings, including an apartment block, found to
have "Mr Fluffy", the street name for asbestos fluff insulation
installed by D. Jansen & Co decades ago.

Loose-fill asbestos could have been fitted in North Sydney homes
between 1968 and 1979 by a different firm. It is understood there
could be as many as 60 homes in Queanbeyan fitted with "Mr
Fluffy".

Queanbeyan mayor Tim Overall said his residents were still
awaiting answers. "It's not acceptable that they have just been
left out on a limb."

Mr Overall said he was stunned that the federal government had not
included Queanbeyan in the package.

"If they added just $50 million on top of the $1 billion they
allocated for the ACT, then that would fix the problem, not just
for Queanbeyan, but for the rest of NSW.''

A spokesman for NSW finance and services minister Dominic
Perrottet said the government was working hard to find a solution.

In August he launched an investigation to help determine the
number of properties in NSW that may contain loose-filled
asbestos.

"The NSW government would like to see the same assistance package
that was offered to the ACT being given to affected NSW residents,
following the outcomes of investigations currently being
undertaken by HACA on the risks and scope of the issue," said Mr
Perrottet.

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said the issue needed to be
sorted out.

"If it's good enough to look after families in the ACT, it should
be good enough for families in Queanbeyan."

A final report on the issue is due early next year.

The state government is offering free technical assessments and a
testing service to property owners in the NSW who may be affected.
Worried residents should contact WorkCover or their council.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lehighton Middle School Plans Fibro Removal
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie De Tore, writing for WNEP.com, reported that Lehighton Area
Middle School, in Pennsylvania, plans to undergo a construction
project during the school's Thanksgiving break.

School officials said that project will be done to remove asbestos
inside the building in Carbon County.  The middle school building
supervisor, Kevin Long,  said the removal is not an emergency and
students are not in danger.

The asbestos is being removed for a long-term goal, a proposed
multimillion dollar renovation project.

"A better learning environment for them with the least amount of
impact to disrupt everything by having the school closing down
while their doing it," said Long.

The school said an environmental group will remove the asbestos
during Lehighton Area's five-day Thanksgiving break.

No students will be allowed in the school at the time.

"There shouldn't be any incident at all, because they go in, the
stuff is removed, the rooms are cleaned and tested before, during
and after the abatement," said Long.

Middle school officials said they agree with parents that the
students are the number one priority, but some parents say they
disagree with the timing of the removal. They think this time of
year isn't the best idea.

"I'm all for making it safer, but I just don't think with all the
debris and things like that. I mean, we live in a bad area with
allergies and things like that, and to add something like that
into the air, I just don't really think it's a good idea," said
Jemima Snyder of Lehighton.

Snyder has a son in the middle school.  She said the project
should have been done during summer recess, instead of a shorter
Thanksgiving break.

"I just don't think it's enough time to take care of the problem
thoroughly," said Snyder.

Other parents said, as long as the removal is done correctly, five
days should be enough.

"If they have the allotted time that they can get it done safely
and the kids will be safe to get back into school, I mean, they
can do it, it's not a big deal," said Sally Hess of Lehighton.

Middle school officials said they will meet with parents about the
asbestos removal at the middle school.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kentucky Tower Tested for Toxic Dust
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Vied, writing for Messenger-Inquirer.com, reported that
Gabe's Tower was inspected for the presence of asbestos for a
second time Oct. 28, an official for the city of Owensboro, in
Kentucky, said, and the results of that study are expected as soon
as possible.

"After Nov. 10 the owners should get the report," said Keith Free,
director of the city's Community Development Department. "It took
only a day or so for the testing."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Washington University Coop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Weien, writing for Student Life, reported that asbestos, a
known carcinogen, was found in a piece of plaster in the basement
of the Washington University Cooperative's Quadrangle Housing-
owned building, in Missouri, although samples taken by Quadrangle
show that asbestos levels fall below Environmental Protection
Agency limits.

The Washington University Cooperative is a living arrangement in
which students divide chores and cooking to foster a collaborative
community. It is partially housed at 6015 Pershing Ave., which was
built in 1910 when asbestos was commonly used as a flame-resistant
building material. A maintenance team responding to a flooring
issue discovered the asbestos.

Co-op residents were concerned that they would lose their
possessions, which were stored in the basement despite rules
forbidding the use of the basement as a storage space.

Steve Condrin, director of Off-Campus Real Estate for Quadrangle,
believes that residents should not look at the issue of asbestos
itself but instead the way that Quadrangle is solving it.

"The important thing here is for them to know is we have a
maintenance team that is well-trained to spot issues," Condrin
said, "that when it sees a potential issue of concern to health
and safety of our residents, they jump on it, and we are also
concerned about the property residents keep in our building."

On Oct. 31, dust and air samples were taken throughout the
basement and came back below the EPA-approved threshold for
asbestos. Samples from the rest of the basement also showed that
the asbestos had not spread. Condrin noted there were pieces of
similar-looking plaster in the basement that did not contain
asbestos.

Quadrangle has hired a licensed team to lead the process of
containing the mineral, which is expected to be completed within
several weeks. The contaminated area will be sealed off and a
machine will lower the pressure in the area to prevent the
chemicals used to treat the asbestos from spreading.

"That's something we will not cut any corners on," Condrin said.
"It will be handled within the applicable guidelines and
regulations that are well-known among the vendors that we work
with."

He added that he understands the concerns of residents.

"I don't think it's unreasonable for people to have natural fear
and curiosity around asbestos," Condrin said. "We share that fear,
and we want to make sure that when there's asbestos in these older
buildings that it doesn't pose a health risk."

One of residents' main concerns was whether they would be able to
reclaim their belongings. Condrin noted that it is in breach of
the lease for the residents to store possessions in the basement.
The company has met with tenants to discuss how they might reclaim
their items. Condrin said that the company will work directly with
tenants to return possessions to their rightful owners or move
unclaimed possessions out of the basement before the containment
process begins.

However, Condrin was not worried that the incident would hurt
Quadrangle's reputation.

"It will only help us to give assurance that we have a team that's
well-trained to look at these things, is proactive and wouldn't
wait until called upon to address a potential issue of concern,"
Condrin said.

He added that Quadrangle will be progressively renovating all of
its buildings, but the date of remodeling the Co-op has yet to be
determined. In this process, the company will conduct a full
survey to remove any hazardous materials and ensure that buildings
are up to standards.

Junior Rebecca Foreman does not live in the Co-op but still felt
that the asbestos was a significant concern.

"That's definitely not good," Foreman said. "I'd hope they're
doing something to fix the situation. If they fix it, that would
be the most important thing to do."

She also said she hopes Quadrangle takes further precaution in
screening its buildings in the future.

"If they were surprised by [the asbestos in the Co-op], then I
would hope they look into all of their similar housing to make
sure it's not secretly everywhere," Foreman said.

Freshman Andrew Gong, who also isn't a Co-op resident, was still
surprised and disappointed by the situation.

"You expect Wash. U. housing to be fairly high quality, and
asbestos isn't," Gong said.

He also was concerned about Quadrangle's knowledge of asbestos in
other buildings and about the possibility that students would be
informed of asbestos after moving into a building.

"If Wash. U. had told me before I had gotten housing, if basically
they had told us before we signed up for housing that this
[apartment] might have asbestos, then I wouldn't be worried," Gong
said. "But if I found out after I had already gotten housing and
there was asbestos in the walls where I was living and I hadn't
known that before, that would concern me because what else isn't
the University telling me?"

Residents of the Co-op declined to comment until all residents had
met to discuss the situation together.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bonney Lake Company Fined for Fibro Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. Roberts, writing for The News Tribune, reported that the
Washington Department of Labor and Industries has cited two
employers for violations that exposed workers to asbestos during
the demolition of a Seattle apartment building.

An agency investigation into the Seattle project found a total of
19 willful and serious safety and health violations. As a result,
together the businesses have been fined a total of $379,100,
according to a release.

Partners Construction Inc., of Federal Way, was cited for a total
of 14 willful and serious violations and fined $291,950. Asbestos
Construction Management Inc., of Bonney Lake, was fined $87,150
for five willful and serious violations.

The violations were for asbestos exposure to workers, asbestos
debris left on site and other violations that occurred during
demolition of an apartment building in the Fremont neighborhood,
the agency said. The three-story, five-unit apartment building was
originally constructed with "popcorn" ceilings, a white substance
containing asbestos fibers, as well as asbestos sheet vinyl
flooring.

In May, Partners was decertified and went out of business. A new
company, Asbestos Construction Management Inc., owned by a family
member of the Partners owner, took over the job using essentially
the same workers and certified asbestos supervisor as Partners,
and sharing the same equipment.

A subsequent inspection of ACM found many of the same violations
as in the Partners' inspection. L&I has initiated decertification
action against ACM. The employers have 15 business days to appeal
the citation.

"It's under appeal," said ACM owner Donny Murray by phone.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Approves Fibro Removal at Former Hotel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Kroschel, writing for WHNT.com, reported that the price tag
the city of Huntsville, Alabama, is stuck with to cover the costs
of demolishing the former Holiday Inn downtown just got more
expensive.

At its meeting, the Huntsville City Council voted to pay
contractors nearly $230,000 to remove and safely dispose of
asbestos found throughout the iconic building across from Big
Spring Park in downtown Huntsville.

The contract says asbestos was discovered in the ceiling, floor
tiles, roof and exterior siding.

The asbestos must be taken care of before the old hotel can come
down to make way for new development. The city agreed in October
to cover the cost of demolishing the 270-room Holiday Inn.

RCP Companies of Huntsville, Central Realty Holdings of
Greenville, S.C., and Strand Development of Myrtle Beach, S.C.,
announced in October that they will spend $70 million transforming
the city-owned parcel into an upscale live-work-play development.

The new development will be called 'Big Spring Square,' and will
include a boutique hotel, 200 apartments and 28,000 square feet of
restaurants, shops and offices served by a multi-level parking
garage.

Central Realty Holdings will pay the city $144,000 per year to
lease site.

Big Spring Square is scheduled to break ground next April and open
in 2016.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canberra Builder Dodges Fibro Bullet
-----------------------------------------------------
David Ellery, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that a
Canberra builder has narrowly escaped asbestos exposure after his
suspicions were aroused by an ultra-cheap plasterboard sourced by
a client.

WorkSafe ACT Commissioner Mark McCabe said the builder was amazed
to learn his client had shipped the sheets from Brisbane to
Canberra for less than similar material could be bought locally.
On examining the sheets he felt they "weren't quite right" and had
a sample tested. It came back positive for chrysotile asbestos.
Preliminary investigations indicate the material was shipped to
Australia from China.

"The client has tried to save money [on his fit-out] by sourcing
materials as cheaply as possible," Mr McCabe said. "It has come
back to bite him; the material is forfeit, he has questions to
answer and it is very lucky that the builder, the builder's staff
and even the client weren't exposed to asbestos."

Mr McCabe said while this material had been sourced through an
Australian supplier, the case highlighted the dangers of shopping
for the cheapest possible building products on the internet.
"Safety standards often differ from country to country, so it is
crucial to check that the products you are ordering are acceptable
for use in Australia and the ACT."

The  extremely low price should have been a red flag.

"As a general rule if a price seems too good to be true then that
is probably the case," he said.

"While we don't know the exact quantity [in this case], a further
supply of the material had been stored in an off-site unit. That
also tested positive for asbestos. A prohibition notice has since
been issued to secure the area and restrict access."

Mr McCabe said that with online trading growing in popularity at
an ever-increasing rate, the risk that owners, builders and other
tradespeople would be put in harm's way was very real.

"While individual incidents may not involve a large quantity of
material, a large number of incidents will, over time, add up to a
lot of exposure."

Mr McCabe said his office would work closely with WorkCover
Queensland to nip the further distribution of the contaminated
product that was discovered in Canberra in the bud.

"The Brisbane supplier, who may well have been told the material
was compliant, could have sent this all over the country," he
said.

Mr McCabe  said that tiles, especially ornate and decorative
examples sourced directly from overseas, represented a significant
risk.

"One of the more common scenarios has involved the importation of
tiles from some Chinese suppliers," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Niles Park Ridge District Plans Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lee V. Gaines, writing for the Chicago Tribune, reported that
Niles Park Ridge District 64 in Illinois is about 17 years away
from removing and replacing tile floors containing asbestos in all
of its schools, district officials heard recently.

The asbestos does not, however, pose a health risk to students or
staff, said Matt Meyer, a representative from the district's
environmental consulting firm, Environ, at a recent board meeting.

Meyer said all school buildings were first inspected for asbestos
in the late 1980s, and inspections have continued with the intent
to "keep an eye on the asbestos and document the condition."

"As long as it's in good condition, and we know where it is and
it's not being disturbed by construction work . . . there is no
mandate you should remove the asbestos from the school," he said.

Scott Mackall, director of facility management for the district,
said the asbestos issue was brought to the attention of the board
following receipt of several emails from concerned individuals.

In particular, Mackall said, concern has been expressed over
missing and loose tiles in the preschool classrooms of Jefferson
School in Niles.

"The fact that the tiles come loose doesn't necessarily indicate
you have an asbestos exposure," Meyer said.

Meyer said floor tiles do not release asbestos material unless
they are pulverized with a floor sander.  Still, he said, the
district may want to consider floor replacement -- not from a
health safety standpoint -- but from a cost-effectiveness
perspective.

The long-term costs of replacing each loose tile "would be much
higher than taking care of it in one swoop," Meyer said.

Additionally, many schools in the district have carpeted floors
dating back about 20 years, under which there are asbestos floor
tiles, he said.

"There is no issue or danger with that, but it complicates things
when the carpet gets wet or needs to be replaced," Meyer said.

Meyer advised the board to consider floor replacement across the
district as a means to reduce costs over the long-term.

Board President Anthony Borrelli asked for confirmation on whether
air sampling would be conducted following asbestos remediation.

Meyer explained that air sampling is only required when removing
friable asbestos -- meaning the material can be crumbled or
reduced to powder with hand pressure.

Non-friable material is considered less dangerous, he said, and
therefore the Illinois Department of Public Health regulations
require that as long as the removal of non-friable asbestos
material is observed by environmental consultants, air sampling
isn't necessary, Meyer said.

The district currently budgets between $100,000 and $150,000 per
year for floor replacement, Mackall said. He added that floor
replacement in the typical classroom costs between $5,000 and
$7,000.

Mackall also noted that asbestos floor tiles can be both friable
and non-friable, and the difference between the two in terms of
removal costs is large.

A higher cost will mean fewer classroom floors will ultimately be
replaced, he added.

Mackall estimated that slightly fewer than 200 classrooms in the
district are still in need of floor replacement, which means,
given the current budget scenario, it would likely take 17 years
to remove and remediate asbestos flooring across the entire
district.

Borrelli wondered whether that time frame could be reduced to 10
years.

"Anything is possible if we have the funding to do it," Mackall
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices Take on 'Any Exposure' Theory Case
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported
that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments
over whether an "any exposure" causation theory should have been
prohibited in an asbestos case against Ford Motor Co.

In an order released on Nov. 6, the court said it would take up
Rost v. Ford Motor.

The first issue to be addressed is whether "a plaintiff in an
asbestos action may satisfy the burden of establishing
substantial-factor causation by an expert's 'cumulative exposure'
theory that the expert concedes is simply an 'any exposure' theory
by a different name," the order said.

Second, according to the order, the court will look at "whether
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas' mandatory practice of
consolidating unrelated asbestos cases -- even where the
defendants suffer severe prejudice as a result -- is consistent
with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and due process;
whether consolidation in this case was proper; and whether the
Superior Court has the authority to review a trial court's case-
consolidation decisions in asbestos cases."

Duane Morris attorney Robert Byer represented Ford and declined to
comment. Rost's lawyer, Robert Paul of Paul, Reich & Myers, did
not return a call seeking comment.

In May, the state Superior Court ruled that despite a plaintiffs
expert's testimony that minimal exposure to asbestos can cause
mesothelioma, prohibition of "any exposure" causation theories did
not apply in the case.

A three-judge panel denied Ford's request for a new trial,
reasoning that the state Supreme Court's decision in Betz v.
Pneumo Abex was not applicable in Rost. In denying a new trial,
the court upheld a $994,800 jury award out of the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas to plaintiff Richard Rost and his wife.

Superior Court Judge Jack A. Panella wrote in the court's opinion
that Rost's experts gave sufficient evidence showing that Rost's
exposure to Ford's asbestos-containing brakes was a substantial
factor in the development of his mesothelioma, contrary to Ford's
assertions.

"While it is true that the 'every exposure' theory does not, by
itself, meet the standard for establishing substantial causation
in a legal sense, this record is more than sufficient to establish
its general scientific legitimacy," Panella said. "As we have
already determined that the rest of the certified record is
sufficient to establish a triable issue on whether Richard Rost's
exposure at the garage was a substantial cause of his
mesothelioma, this defect in the 'every exposure' theory is not
sufficient to warrant reversal in this case."

Rost filed suit in 2009 alleging that his exposure to various
products from Ingersoll-Rand, General Electric, Westinghouse (all
of which settled with the plaintiff) and Ford contributed to his
development of mesothelioma, according to Panella.

Rost testified that he worked at a Ford dealership in 1950 for
several months. According to Panella, Rost said the Ford brakes
the dealership serviced in its garage contained 40 to 60 percent
asbestos by weight.

Rost's duties included cleaning the garage and removing brake
linings -- activities that generated dust that Rost inhaled.
Panella added that the exhaust system in the garage was also very
limited.

One of Rost's experts, Dr. Arthur Frank, testified that there were
case studies that showed individuals who were exposed to asbestos
for only a day developed mesothelioma, Panella said. Frank also
said certain animal studies showed that any exposure from one day
to one month doubles the risk of developing mesothelioma.

Ford argued on appeal that Rost did not offer "competent expert
opinion in demonstrating that the exposure to asbestos
attributable to Ford was sufficient to qualify as a substantial
factor" in causing Rost's mesothelioma, Panella said. Ford pointed
to Betz and the Supreme Court's opinion in Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts
as similar cases.

However, Panella said, "Clearly, neither of these opinions
required the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action merely
due to the problems with the plaintiffs expert's opinion on
causation."

Additionally, Panella said Ford misinterpreted the Supreme Court's
ruling in Betz, explaining that the Betz decision does not require
judges to reject the opinion of any expert who testifies as to the
amount of asbestos to which a person can be safely exposed.

"Rather, the Betz court held that, based upon the record before
it, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining
that the expert in that case had not established the legitimacy of
his legal conclusion that any exposure was a substantial cause of
the plaintiff's disease," Panella said.

Panella said despite Frank's every-exposure theory, when taken in
context with the other evidence and testimony on regularity of
exposure given by Rost's other expert witnesses, "the record is
more than sufficient to support the verdict reached by the jury."

Ford also argued that Rost should have been made to prove that the
asbestos brakes he came into contact with were defective under
products liability law, Panella said.

Citing the Superior Court's 2010 decision in the asbestos case of
Moore v. Ericsson, Panella noted, "With respect to asbestos cases,
what renders the product unsafe for its intended use is the
presence of asbestos in the product, or the dangers from
inhalation of asbestos fibers."

As in Ericsson, Panella said, the issue in Rost was not whether a
product was defective because it contained asbestos, but whether
the defendant's product contained asbestos, whether the plaintiff
was exposed to it and whether that exposure caused the plaintiff's
mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Laid After Sloppy Fibro Removal Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Wenley, writing for Sunday Star Times, reported that safety
authorities have charged a demolition company with endangering
children at one of New Zealand's wealthiest schools, which is
attended by the offspring of well-known politicians and sports and
screen stars.

WorkSafe NZ confirmed a company involved in a construction project
at Bayfield Primary in Herne Bay faces two charges of breaching
the Workplace Health and Safety Act for failing in its duties to
employees and to others, including children.

Demolition work began on the school's leaky buildings in early
April and the site was fenced off while school continued as usual
for its year zero to six students in pre-fabricated classrooms.

But some parents, including former Labour leader David Cunliffe
and his wife Karen Price, are understood to have been extremely
worried about the potential spread of asbestos in dust. After
discussion, the board closed the school, and its students spent a
week at a neighbouring school while the asbestos in the classroom
block's cladding was removed.

Bayfield's high-profile parents include Hollywood actor Karl
Urban, America's Cup sailor Dean Barker and socialite Aja Rock.

Brett Archer has two children at the school and runs a
construction project management company.

He deals with asbestos on a regular basis and first alerted the
school on May 1 about his concerns surrounding the spread of
demolition dust, but said it took another six days before the
school was closed.

During that time he was so worried about the safety of the 380
children that he took his own samples of materials and dust and
sent them to a laboratory for testing. Some of his samples came
back positive for asbestos in an area next to where children
played, he said.

"I took my kids out of the school because I wasn't satisfied that
it was safe. I believe other parents also raised their concerns
with the school at the time and will also have an active interest
in what happens next."

Cunliffe would not comment, but former ACT Party leader Jamie
Whyte, who also has a daughter at the school, said he did not
believe there was anything to worry about.

"At the time I thought it was an overreaction as, to get ill from
asbestos, you need repeated long-term exposure. As a parent I
wasn't concerned and didn't think it was a big deal . . . you are
more likely to die from getting tangled in your own bedsheets than
asbestos."

Other parents were far more concerned. Phil Wardale said the
children would line up around the fenced-off construction site and
watch the machinery, which caused lots of dust.  He was
disappointed that parents' concerns were initially dismissed, but
continued lobbying resulted in some action.

"The Ministry of Education did a good job once they realised
something was potentially up by closing the school and relocating
the children. Most of my criticism is centred around the slow
action early on but lessons can be learned."

The school board of trustees chairman David McPherson said the
board was not aware of charges being laid but it did appear
WorkSafe had made a full and detailed inquiry into the incident.

"We closed the school as soon as the asbestos issue came to light
and did not reopen it until it was safe to do so."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Independent PwC Probe on Fibro Issue in NSW
------------------------------------------------------------
Architecture & Design reported that the Heads of Asbestos
Coordination Authorities (HACA) in Australia have initiated steps
to investigate and assess the problem of loose-fill asbestos in
New South Wales. Chaired by WorkCover NSW, HACA is comprised of
NSW government agencies that have a role in the management and
monitoring of asbestos issues.

HACA has engaged the services of PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct
an independent investigation into loose-fill asbestos in New South
Wales. HACA is also providing free ceiling insulation testing to
identify the full extent of affected homes across the State.

As of 31 October 2014, 593 premises in the 26 council areas have
registered for the free sampling service. These LGAs have been
identified through the analysis of archival government records. A
breakdown of sampling requests by LGA is available on the
WorkCover NSW website.

Licensed asbestos assessors are currently undertaking inspections
and testing of properties; all samples from the 64 properties
tested till date, have returned a negative result.

Concerned residents in homes built before 1980 can contact
WorkCover on 13 10 50 to see if they are eligible to have their
property tested and assessed for presence of asbestos. A licensed
asbestos assessor can be consulted to check whether living spaces
are well sealed and asbestos hazards are appropriately controlled.
A list of licensed asbestos assessors is online on the WorkCover
website.

Free ceiling insulation tests are being provided for homeowners
across 26 local government areas to identify all loose-fill
asbestos in residential premises. Free independent technical
assessments are being offered to affected homeowners regarding the
adequacy of risk controls in each of the identified homes for a
12-month period.

Interim findings from the assessments will be used to inform the
NSW Government on any immediate actions that need to be taken to
address the problem. HACA is working quickly to develop a prudent,
evidence-based solution to assist those with loose-fill asbestos
in their homes.

The NSW Government will consider the findings of the independent
investigation and possible measures to assist affected
householders. The Chief Health Officer has considered the ACT
Taskforce Report and confirmed the need to wait for the results of
the current NSW investigation.

A breakdown of testing results by local government areas is
provided on the WorkCover NSW website.

Design professionals are embracing walls beyond their main purpose
to create inspiring and interesting commercial spaces.

Feature walls have evolved since they first started to appear[1]
in the 80s, with a shift towards the feature wall being both
beautiful and functional.

Feature walls are often used by businesses to add ambience and
character to commercial facilities and the type of feature wall
used can reflect different characteristics.  They can help
highlight an area, add aesthetic value and style or harmonise a
design.

Adding a feature wall to a design can dramatically change a space.
For example, using a timber-inspired feature wall can add warmth
to a space and make it more inviting, while adding a textured
surface can add depth and elegance.

According to Laminex Marketing Manager, Joanna Baker, the 'do more
with your walls' design-thinking is seeing architects, designers
and specifiers use walls as a standout, functional feature.

"All in the name of functional design, there is a rise of walls
being used as writing surfaces, creative storage solutions, wall
dividers and movable wall systems to create reconfigurable spaces
in commercial interiors, from offices to retail and hospitality
fit outs," Baker said.

Incorporating durable and decorative walls into functional
commercial spaces can be achieved with the wide range of Laminex
Wall Panel solutions. Made up of a large selection of durable,
easy to clean options, Laminex Wall Panels can quickly transform
any space. This cost effective solution includes a mounting and
wall-lining system making it easy to install and remove panels.

The mounting system, Buttonfix[3] is a multi-configurable, secure
and secret fixing system, which gives design professionals the
ability to mount and remove[4] Laminex panels. It also allows for
90 degree corners, hidden access panels, hinged doors and can
reduce installation time, saving project costs.

Ranging from durable and decorative to magnetic and writable
panels, the selection of Laminex panels that can be used with
Buttonfix include Laminex Impressions textured surfaces[5],
Laminex DiamondGloss[6], Laminex Timber Veneers, Laminex Silk
Finish[7], Laminex Innovations and Laminex Compact Laminate[8].

The wall-lining system, Clipwall is a revolutionary system that
will breathe new life into commercial interiors. It eliminates the
time consuming process of plaster joining and painting by offering
a durable and virtually seamless solution with pre-finished
panels. Whilst allowing architects, specifiers and designers to
incorporate stunning patterns and textures into interiors, Laminex
Clipwall is also up to five times faster to install than
alternative wall panelling options.

Laminex Clipwall panels are scratch and UV resistant, splash
proof, easy to clean and available as a fire resistant option. A
range of neutral and woodgrain decors are available in the Laminex
Clipwall range.

"Laminex Wall Panel solutions give professionals the confidence to
use our ranges of decorative panels in applications where easy
installation, durability and visual impact are important. This
includes airport terminals, corporate receptions, corridors, hotel
lobbies and much more," Baker said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bega Valley Residents Ask for Fibro Testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Dion, writing for Merimbula News, reported that recent
publicity surrounding the use of loose fill asbestos as insulation
in homes in the ACT, Queanbeyan and surrounding areas in
Australia, has prompted a number of local residents to contact
Bega Valley Shire Council for advice, particularly in relation to
a product known as Mr Fluffy.

In August council said that local residents concerned about the
possibility of having loose fill asbestos insulation in their
ceiling space had the option of applying for free testing and risk
assessments through the NSW government.

A council spokesman said that 18 residents had spoken to council
about Mr Fluffy concerns. As a consequence 15 people had
registered with the WorkCover authority who are undertaking the
assessment and where necessary sampling.

The spokesman said that of the nine homes which had their
insulation sampled so far, none had been found to contain loose
filled asbestos.  The free testing service is available to
eligible Bega Valley residents for a 12 month period, for any
suspected loose fill asbestos from homes built prior to 1980.

During the 1960s and 1970s, pure loose fill asbestos was sold as
ceiling insulation for residential and commercial premises in
Australia. A company known as 'Mr Fluffy' installed this
insulation in properties in and around the ACT and parts of NSW.

Sampling programs between 1989 and 2009 identified 13 properties
in Queanbeyan City and the surrounding local government areas of
Yass and Palerang as containing asbestos material installed by Mr
Fluffy. Two other contractors may have installed loose filled
asbestos insulation during this time in southern NSW.

Council's manager of health and building services, Jeff Tipping
said: "If you are concerned you are encouraged to get in touch
with council as your first point of contact, and we will then
determine if you are eligible and how you can apply for the free
service through Workcover."

November is National Asbestos Awareness month and with Australia
having one of the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in
the world, this year's awareness month is themed 'Get to know
asbestos this November'.

Bega Valley Shire Council will launch its new asbestos policy on
Friday, November 21 in Eden. The event will feature the appearance
of 'Betty', a purpose-built, mobile model house which demonstrates
the multiple locations where asbestos might be found. Council
staff will also be speaking with tradespeople to answer any
asbestos related questions.

Council will also have a static display at Hylands Corner,
Merimbula on Friday, November 14.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Illinois PI Firm Adds New Fibro Lawyer
-------------------------------------------------------
The Edwardsville, Illinois-based law firm Gori Julian &
Associates, Inc., P.C. recently announced the addition of Wendy
Julian, Esq. -- wjulian@gorijulianlaw.com -- to the growing firm's
roster of attorneys.

A native of Madison County, Wendy Julian was born and raised in
Alton, graduating from Alton High School. Julian earned a Bachelor
of Science in Accounting from Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville. Immediately following her undergraduate studies she
earned her law degree and graduated with honors from Mississippi
College School of Law in 2011. After graduation she worked in the
areas of family law, probate, tax, and civil litigation. At Gori
Julian, she will focus on the areas of asbestos litigation.

Julian currently lives in Godfrey and is a member of the American
Bar Association, the Illinois State Bar Association, and the
Missouri Bar Association.

Julian joins Gori Julian & Associates' team of highly skilled
attorneys that concentrate on complex asbestos cases and personal
injury litigation. While the firm is headquartered in Illinois,
Gori Julian & Associates is truly a nationwide firm as it has
represented victims of asbestos exposure from throughout the
country. The firm also handles cases in occupational disease,
pharmaceutical litigation, products liability litigation, personal
injury and more.

Gori Julian & Associates, located at 156 North Main Street in
downtown Edwardsville, was formed in summer 2008 by Randy Gori and
Barry Julian. Gori Julian & Associates also has an office in St.
Peters, Mo. For more information, please call 877-456-5419.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Appeals for Help
-------------------------------------------------------
Cara Simpson, writing for Coventry Telegraph, reported that the
devastated widow of a former factory worker in Coventry, England,
who died from an industrial disease is appealing for justice.

George Yates, also known as Alan, was 80 when he died in June last
year after a year-long battle with mesothelioma.  The aggressive
and incurable cancer affects the lining of the lungs and is caused
by exposure to asbestos dust.

George's wife, Marie, has now instructed industrial disease
experts to investigate the working conditions at his former
employer, Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited, and whether more could
have been done to protect him from exposure.

The father-of-three and grandfather-of-two began his career there
as a trainee draughtsman in 1955, becoming a qualified draftsman
and remaining with the company until 1963, where he carried out a
variety of engineering work throughout the factory at Whitley.  It
is believed asbestos was present in the materials used by the
company to manufacture aircraft.

George, who lived in Hinckley while working in Coventry, began to
suffer from breathlessness, lethargy and chest pain in May 2012,
and was referred by his GP to hospital for further investigation.

Marie says tests returned negative and George was diagnosed with
an infection and given painkillers.  She only discovered he had
mesothelioma a year after his death when she received his
postmortem certificate in June.

"I suspected all along that he had cancer," she said, "and watched
him disintegrate before my eyes week by week.

"To find out after he died that he did have cancer was
devastating.

"So please come forward anyone who can help, please help bring our
family closure."

Hayley Hill, a specialist lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, representing
Marie, said: "The dangers and risks of exposure to asbestos dust
were identified as early as 1940 and 1950, yet all too often we
see workers and their families who have been left devastated
decades later because their relatives were not warned of the
dangers or given the appropriate protection."

Anyone who worked with George at Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited
between 1955 and 1963 should contact Hayley Hill at Irwin Mitchell
on 0121 214 5407 or email Hayley.hill@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Fined $379K for Seattle Fibro Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Burnside, writing for KomoNews.com, reported that two
asbestos removal firms were fined $379,100 by the Washington State
Department of Labor and Industries for failing to remove a large
quantity of asbestos from a demolition site in Seattle even after
the companies had certified that they had, says the agency.

According to the citations obtained by KOMO 4 News, the firms were
accused of 19 "willful and serious" violations of strict rules to
keep workers and the public protected from the airborne cancer-
causing particles that were commonly used in ceilings, walls and
floorings before it was banned.

The documents explained "willful and serious" means "intentional
disregard of, or plain indifference to" the rules. Some of the
violations were paperwork infractions, while others were based on
asbestos debris left about the construction site at 3924 Linden
Avenue North. A new four-story apartment building now stands on
the property.

L&I said in the documents that Partners Construction of Bonney
Lake and Asbestos Construction Management of Federal Way were
found to have left behind a large amount of asbestos last summer
from 5,400 square feet of "popcorn" ceiling, as well as flooring
even after they had certified to the apartment building owner that
all the asbestos had been removed.

Neighbors and other contractors said the debris pile remained on
site while L&I inspectors investigated and ultimately made sure
all the asbestos had been removed.

L&I says it got a tip from an employee.

At the home registered to Partners Construction in Federal Way, a
man identifying himself as Dan Murray answered the knock on the
door.  He said the allegations aren't true and blamed the whole
thing on an ex employee. He did, however, admit that L&I officials
found asbestos, but he said it was set to be removed.

"They did. They did. We weren't done with the job," he said.

Murray also said they are appealing the fines.

Shortly after Partners Construction was found by L&I to have
violated asbestos rules, the state de-certified it and effectively
put it out of business. But L&I says a family member from the
Partners Construction group created ACM and continued doing
asbestos removal on the same demolition site, until L&I
decertified it too.

"It was a huge surprise. I had no idea," said Mike Raven, who
lives immediately next door, just 20 feet away.

"I grew up at a time when one of the schools I went to had
asbestos issues," he said, "so I am familiar with some of the
dangers and not pleased to hear about it next door."

L&I said in the citations that "failure to clean up asbestos
debris after removal activities significantly increases the
likelihood that employees and members of the public will be
exposed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Governer Chastises EPA for Delayed Libby Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Chaney, writing for Missoulian, reported that the the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's failure to release a final
report necessary for asbestos cleanup at Libby drew a rebuke from
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock.

"I understand that the Libby Amphibole Asbestos values may be
delayed again, and that there may be pressure upon EPA not to
release those values," Bullock wrote to EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy on Nov. 3. "Right now, the risk assessment, feasibility
study, proposed plan and Record of Decision all are waiting upon
issuance of the toxicity values for Libby Asbestos Amphibole
before these documents can be completed.

"The community of Libby has been waiting for 15 years for a final
cleanup plan, and it is time to provide the people of Libby
certainty regarding the proposed cleanup."

Bullock spokesman Dave Parker cited reports in Inside Washington
Publishers that the law firm defending vermiculite mine owner W.R.
Grace and Co. has been challenging the EPA's toxicity research and
procedures, which in turn has delayed publication of the report.

The EPA regional office in Denver did not have a new date for when
the toxicity plan might be released.

"We appreciate the governor's letter and continue to work to
finalize the cleanup plan for the state," EPA spokesman Lisa
McClain-Vanderpool said. "We recognize the importance of
resolution for Libby and the state of Montana."

Hundreds of Libby residents have been sickened or killed by
asbestos-related diseases stemming from W. R. Grace's mine and
production facility near the northwest Montana town. Federal
officials started investigating the problem in 1999, and the area
was declared a public health emergency in 2009.

At least 1,700 homes and properties have since been cleaned, with
the removal and storage of 1.2 million tons of asbestos-
contaminated soil at a cost of more than $447 million. Several
hundred more properties have been identified for cleaning of
vermiculite deposits, which were used in everything from household
insulation to fill in athletic fields.

The vermiculite mine itself closed in 1990 and still awaits a
cleanup plan of its own.

The reports Bullock referred to are key to determining if the
cleanup efforts are working. In 2013, the EPA's Office of
Inspector General criticized the agency for delays in releasing
the toxicity reports. They were expected to be released this fall.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Denied Over Contradicting Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a Pennsylvania judge in the asbestos multidistrict litigation
court has denied summary judgment on the grounds that sufficient
evidence was provided and the parties presented contradicting
evidence in regards to military specifications on warning labels.

Judge Eduardo Robreno filed the order on Sept. 29 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but it
wasn't filed online until Nov. 3.

Plaintiff Donald Sellers alleges he was exposed to asbestos while
serving in the Navy as a fireman aboard the USS Mann from 1954 to
1957. He was later diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of his
exposure.

Sellers' case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina in June 2012.

Defendant Crane Co. manufactured valves that used asbestos-
containing component parts supplied by third-party manufacturers.
The defendant's valves were often used aboard Navy vessels.

Because maritime law is applicable to this case, Crane Co. sought
summary judgment arguing that according to maritime law, it has no
duty to warn about asbestos hazards associated with products or
component parts that it did not manufacture.

Crane Co. also asserts the government contractor defense by
claiming it is immune from liability because the Navy exercised
discretion and held "reasonably precise specifications" for the
products in this case.

Furthermore, Crane Co. alleges it provided warnings that conformed
to the Navy's specifications, clarifying that the Navy knew about
asbestos hazards.

Sellers, on the other hand, argues that summary judgment based on
the government contractor defense is inappropriate.

In his deposition, he claims various military specifications show
that the Navy did not prohibit Crane Co. from providing additional
warnings with its product, leaving the "nature and provision" of
warnings for defendant to determine.  He also argues that he
provided sufficient evidence of product identification and
causation to survive summary judgment.

In his deposition, Sellers testified that he was exposed to
asbestos dust from asbestos-containing gaskets and packing used in
Crane Co. valves aboard the USS Mann, including the original
asbestos-containing component parts supplied by Crane Co.

Robreno agreed, concluding that a reasonable jury could conclude
from the evidence that Sellers was exposed to asbestos from Crane
Co.'s products and that his exposure was a substantial factor in
causing his injury.

As for the argument on warnings, Robreno held that there is
contradicting evidence as to whether the Navy required specific
warnings or whether Crane Co. could use its own discretion.

Therefore, Robreno denied summary judgment on both grounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Peak Body Says NSW Fibro Danger Mismanaged
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marie Sansom, writing for Government News, reported that loose-
fill asbestos has been 'grossly mismanaged' by successive NSW
governments, says the state's peak body for local councils.

Local Government NSW (LGNSW) said in its submission to the Joint
Select Committee inquiry in Loose-Fill Asbestos, which is due to
report in February next year, that the state government's approach
to dealing with asbestos so far had caused residents 'anguish and
disappointment'.

"An unfortunate chain of events has left a currently unquantified
number of people facing an unintended hazard and fearful of
unimaginable potential consequences," said its submission.

The problem is particularly acute in Queanbeyan, only a stone's
throw from the ACT and the original source of the noxious Mr
Fluffy loose-fill insulation, where residents have argued they
have suffered equally but they still have no certainty over what
will happen to them or to their homes.

The Commonwealth government recently announced a $1 billion
concessionary loan to help bankroll the ACT's buy back and
demolition scheme and there have been calls to offer NSW the same
deal, principally to provide residents some security and to
encourage people to get their homes tested.

Meanwhile, the ACT government has set the ball rolling on its buy
back scheme and asked the Australian Property Institute to begin
valuing the 1021 homes found to contain Mr Fluffy insulation
within its borders.

But the scale of the problem in NSW is not yet known. Figures
provided by the Ministry of Health in August suggest that at least
230 NSW homes could be affected, up to 140 of these in Albury,
Tumbarumba and Wagga Wagga and 60 in Berrigan.

Fewer than 10 properties are thought to be in Sydney but LGNSW
said there was evidence that loose-fill asbestos insulation had
been transported to St Ives and North Sydney, which made other
homes in the North Sydney and Ku-ring-Gai local council areas
suspect.

So far the presence of loose-fill asbestos, which can cause
cancers and mesothelioma when airborne, has been confirmed in 22
residential properties in the NSW.

Sixteen of these were in Queanbeyan  while the other six were
scattered, including one home each in three Sydney councils --
Manly, Parramatta and Bankstown.

It's not just asbestos-filled homes that could be flying under the
radar but also schools, council buildings and commercial
buildings.

LGNSW's inquiry submission made it clear that the NSW government
needs to take urgent action and learn lessons from the way the ACT
has handled its asbestos problem.

The association has backed waiving fees for asbestos disposal,
setting up a hotline and offering counselling to NSW residents and
maintaining a confidential online database for homes with loose-
fill asbestos to protect emergency services staff and
tradespeople.

It is not just a state government issue. Councils deal with
asbestos in the course of their duties of overseeing land use
planning (development applications and demolitions), managing
contaminated land and regulating activities like DIY home
renovations and waste transport and disposal. They also have to
manage an emergency response to asbestos and educate the public.

LGNSW said serious consideration should be given to forcing home
vendors to disclose loose-fill insulation when they sell, possibly
extending this information to prospective buyers of adjacent
properties.

The association also backed fixing labels indicating loose-fill
asbestos onto electricity meter box to warn of loose-fill asbestos
in a home. The ACT government already provides these free.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Resolves Suit v. 2 Fibro Attys, Radiologist
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progressive Railroading reported that CSX Transportation announced
it resolved the final stages of a racketeering and fraud lawsuit
against two asbestos attorneys and a radiologist. As part of the
settlement, a West Virginia jury's verdict stands and CSX will
receive $7.3 million to satisfy a September 2013 court judgment
entered against the lawyers and doctor regarding disputed motions
for attorney fees and costs.

In July 2007, CSX filed civil and fraud claims alleging that the
defendants conspired to manufacture and litigate fraudulent
asbestos claims against the railroad. In December 2012, a jury
awarded CSX about $429,000 in damages, an amount that later was
tripled to $1.3 million by the judge as required by a federal
racketeering statute. The damages and legal fees totaled $7.3
million.

"The jury and the judges . . . acknowledged that fraud in injury
claims degrades the U.S. system and makes it harder for truly
injured persons to be treated fairly," said Ellen Fitzsimmons,
CSX's executive vice president of law and public affairs, in a
press release. "These funds will be donated to the CSX Foundation,
where they will be dedicated to philanthropic efforts serving
CSX's communities."

The CSX Foundation supports Beyond our Rails, a shared program
between CSX and its employees that seeks to advance safety,
wellness, environmental and community-based initiatives.

CSX deserves a great deal of credit for "turning the tables" on
the fraudulent asbestos litigation perpetrators in the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case, said Sherman
Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association.

"This successful RICO litigation now serves as a model for other
corporate defendants that have been plagued by such fraud for
decades," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gaythorne Fibro Meeting Hears of Health Concerns
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Moore, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that Queensland
Health and the Department of Environment co-ordinated an emergency
public meeting to discuss asbestos-related disease fears in
Mitchelton and Gaythorne.

This followed a series of reports of broken-up sheets of asbestos
being found in the suburbs traced to an asbestos factory that was
in Gaythorne from 1936 to 1983.

The Wunderlich asbestos factory at Gaythorne was shut down in
1983.

Originally samples of old asbestos sheeting were found in Bellevue
Avenue.

Amanda Richards, general manager of Queensland's Asbestos-Related
Disease Society said northside residents were now worried after
several "dumps" of old asbestos sheeting were located.

"Every day we are getting more phone calls from people who lived
in the area or who worked at the factory," Ms Richards told Radio
4BC.

Ms Richards said people told her organisation of different dumping
grounds for broken-up asbestos from the factory.

"It seems to be spreading out wider and wider every time I get
another phone call," she said.

She said the concerns had emerged after newer residents move into
the suburb and began to create gardens and renovate older homes.

"They are starting to find asbestos in their yard. It may even be
that they may not even be able to dig because their house may be
on an asbestos dump."

She said residents were finding small pieces of older blue and
brown asbestos in the garden.  However she in one area she went to
look at near Kedron Brook Creek there was "sheet upon sheet upon
sheet" of asbestos.  She said local residents told her that trucks
from the factory would dump asbestos near a drain that runs into
Kedron Brook.  Ms Richards said she had spoken with residents
about "older dimpled fibro" sheeting made from asbestos.

Concerns were first raised in October about the former Wunderlich
plant in suburban Gaythorne.

Residents told a law firm specialising in asbestos-related claims
of seeing clouds of dust in streets around the factory which left
windows and washing coated in white powder.  It has been reported
that 20 cases of asbestos- related compensations claims with
former residents have been finalised, though this could not be
confirmed.  Ms Richards said it was now a Queensland Government
responsibility to repair.

"Now that we know that these dumps are around, we need the
government to deal with it," she said.

"And whether it is public land or private land, something has to
be put in place to either seal the asbestos off, or dig it up and
dump it properly in the mines site."

A Queensland Health spokesperson could not be contacted.

ABC Television reported that Queensland Health representatives at
the public meeting told residents that because the asbestos being
found was old, any risk was "low".

However Fairfax Media understands a state government investigation
will identify where asbestos is being found in Gaythorne and
Mitchelton and the history of the Wunderlich factory site.


                              *********

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  * * *