CAR_Public/141205.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, December 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 242


                             Headlines

400 EAST: Tenants May Seek Damages Thru Class Suit, NY Court Says
AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS: Ex-Franchise Owners File RICO Class Action
ACME SMOKED: Recalls 564 Lbs. of Imported Smoked Nova Salmon
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
AETERNA ZENTARIS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action

AGENCE METROPOLITAINE: Superior Court Approves Settlement
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Directed-Verdict Motions Denied in Nexium Suit
ATP OIL: Securities Suit vs. Execs. Dismissed Without Prejudice
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Callaghan" Mini Cooper Suit Dismissed
BP PLC: Oil Spill Fraudster Loses Bid to Cut Prison Sentence

BURGER KING: Settles Junk Fax Class Action for $8.5 Million
CARPENTER CO: Settles Foam Price-Fixing Class Suit for $108 Mil.
CARRIER CORPORATION: Dist. Court Dismisses "Young" Suit
CITY ESCAPE: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CITY LINE: Recalls 1.2MM Lbs. of Frozen Pretzel Hot Dog Products

CITY LINE: Recalls Additional 12,282 Lbs. of Hot Dog Products
COLLEGIATE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes Overtime Class Action to Federal Court
CVS PHARMACY: Deadline to File Class Deal Motion Moved to Dec. 12
DUMONT PUBLIC: Trial Judge's Ruling in J.T. Case Affirmed

E'LAN LLC: "Freeman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
E.I. DU PONT: Feb. 5 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Action Set
EXQUISITE DELICATESSEN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Certification Bid Dates in Bueche Suit Vacated
FIREEYE INC: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

FLYING COW: Recalls One Lot of Whole Milk Yogurt
GEORGIA: Ruling in Sentinel Offender Cases Upheld in Part
GLOBAL RESPONSE: "Murphy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GRACO CHILDREN'S: NHTSA Investigates Child Car Seat Recall
GRAIN PROCESSING: High Court Won't Hear Appeal in Pollution Case

HENRY'S FARM: Recalls All Packages of Soybean Sprouts
HURONIA: Claims Bar Date in Class Action Settlement Expires
INBOUND CALL: Faces "Reid" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JAYCO: Recalls Jay Flight Travel Trailer Model
K. HEEPS: Recalls 2,902 Lbs. of Bratwurst & Bangers Sausage

KASIA'S DELI: Recalls 2,059 Lbs. of Pierogi Products
KENNETH COLE: N.Y. Appellate Court Rejects "Entire Fairness" Test
KEYSTONE: Recalls Laredo Model Due to Breaker
KOOL-KIT: Recalls Neonate Due to Lack of Probe From IFU
KOZY SHACK: Recalls Certain Products Due to Undeclared Milk

KROGER CO: Recalls Select Containers of Moose Tracks Ice Cream
LONGTOP FIN'L: Ex-CFO Must Pay Damages for Misleading Shareholders
MAGNA GROUP: "Serber" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MATTHEW BENDER: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MEXX CANADA: Recalls Mini Tights

MOL GLOBAL: Overstated Fin'l Reports, "Freedman" Suit Claims
MORGAN KEEGAN: Jan. 12 Trial Set for Moberly Bonds Class Action
NATURA PET: Recalls Certain Dry Cat and Dry Ferret Food
NATURE'S PATH: Court Narrows "Leonhart" Misbranding Case
NOAH MARTIN: Recalls Unpasteurized Apple Cider Due to E. coli

NUTRONICS LABS: Must Face False Advertising Class Action
NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Product Report
O'KEEFE LEASHOLD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OFFICE DEPOT: "Danley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kubat" Suit Claims

PINGTAN MARINE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
PRIME HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Rules on Appeals in "Willis" Suit
RANCHERS LEGACY: Recalls 1,200 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products
REXALL SUNDOWN: Judge Rejects Glucosamine Class Action Settlement
RITE AID: Superior Court Decision in "Landay" Case Reversed

SADAR AND ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Wood" Suit Claims
SAPAR USA: Recalls 14 Lbs. of Sausage Products Due to Misbranding
SPX CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Retirement Benefits
SUGAR ROCK: W.Va. Court Issues Opinion on Mining Partnership
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Commiciotto" Suit Over Faulty Airbags

TAKATA CORP: Faces "Fuentes" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Nam" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORP: Faces Wrongful Death Suit Over Air Bag Defect
TAKATA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Air Bag Defect Class Action
TAKATA CORP: Senators Demand Airbag Defect Internal Documents

THOR MOTOR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
TRIUMPH: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in "Garcia" Suit
USA MART: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

VENTANA MEDICAL: Recalls AFB III Staining Kit
VISA U.S.A.: Calif. Appeals Court Modifies Ruling in Tying Cases
VIVINT SOLAR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO
VIZIO INC: Faces "Larsen" for Falsifying LED TV Refresh Rate
WESTERN TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime

WHITE & BLUE: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Contaminated Tattoo Needles
YAHOO INC: 3rd Cir. Panel Takes TCPA Class Action Under Advisement
Z-ULTIMATE SELF: Sanctioned for Evidence Tampering in Geiger Suit
ZIMMER PSI: Recalls Knee-Nexgen PRI Jigs & Offset Tibia Rotation

* Long Beach Homeowners to Sue Insurers Over Sandy Claims


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CONSOL Energy Unit Has 6,900 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 59 Fibro Suits vs. Watts Water Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,925 Claims as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit has 7,731 Claims at Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 438 PI Cases Pending as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Buys Back Stock from WR Grace Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Continues to Analyzes EME Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro's Garlock Sealing Has 2 Pending Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $100.7MM Insurance for Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Reported $279.6MM Fibro Liability Accrual
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 42,560 Fibro Claims as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Ups Fibro Reserves by $4MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling Favoring Owens PI Trust

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Approves Deal Remanding "Ard" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Flips Ruling in 2 Suits v. Colgate
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Sets Trial on "Boyd" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review TRO in Inmate Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDOC Dropped as Defendant in Inmate's Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IMO Granted Summary Judgment in "McMann" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Obtains Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Accurso Wins $10.8-Mil. Fibro Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Washington Fibro Removal Firms Fined $379,100
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Set Up to Contain Cancer Clusters

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Worker Mows Over Illegal Fibro Dump
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newtownabbey Roofing Firm Fined GBP9,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff's Evidence Found Vague, Speculative
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paul Napoli Returns to Fibro Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Off the Hook in PI Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Governor Pushes EPA to Finish Libby Study
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Hear Claim EnPro Hid Fibro Evidence
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Awards $71-Mil. in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipbuilder Earns Summary Judgment in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Appeal Could Aid Defendants in Fibro Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $3.8MM Judgment in Survival Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Open Files on Garlock Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Scaffolder Dies From Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Environmental Violators Go to Jail in Crackdown
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafety Watchdog Rejects Union's Fibro Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 'Mindless" Dumping of Fibro at Limerick Pier
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call for Help on Corsham Fibro by Ill Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Seeks to Block Rehash of Damages Issue
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Families of University Workers Win Cancer Payout
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Fines Stamford for Fibro at Police HQ

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Six-Figure Settlement for Meso Victim's Family
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Seeks $50MM Loan for Mr. Fluffy Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 80 Fibro Dumpings in Wollongong in Past Year
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices Eye Philly Fibro Consolidation Protocol
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Judge Junks Evidence Spoliation Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Says Complex Libby Assessment Takes Time
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Docs Trying to Stop Fibro Use in Asia
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coltrec Says New Info Won't Alter Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Says Fibro Claims Rising
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Upholds Federal Officer Removal Defense

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Dept. Probing Mount Manresa Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore College Hid Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scapa Flow Torpedo Survivor Killed by Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labourer Fatally Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Lawyers Join Fibro Case Specialists

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swiss Billionaire Wins Fibro Court Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore College to Hire Firm to Test for Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Victorian Schools Needs Urgent Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Docker Dies After Port Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundon Man Dies of Fibro-related Illness

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Former School Slated for Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Saipan Airport
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas SC Agrees to Rehear Fibro Case v. Dow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYU Shouldn't Get Defense in 9/11 Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Alleges Fibro Cover-up at Michigan Schools

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Vows to Remove Fibro From Victoria Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Vows to Fight James Hardie Payout Plan
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roads Closed Amid Fibro Fears From Barn Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Potential Fibro Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family in Fight Over Fibro Tragedy Payout

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Test for Fibro in Brisbane Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Delays Glasgow Art School Fire Fix
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfield Residents Fear Post-Storm Fibro Threat
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Sparks Fibro Fears at Edge Hill University
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankrupt Co. Reaches Deal With Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure to Fibro Takes Its Toll on Rocky Man
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hull Docker's Family Wins Fibro Battle
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Clean-up Bill for 2 Ships Could Top EUR1MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seaham Man Illegally Removes Fibro From House

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Worker Dies From Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homeowner Brings Landmark Case v. Gov't
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Authority Won't Have to Pay for 9/11 Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Wants Class Suit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Judge Suggests Remanding Hundres of Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Has 181 Trials Set This Week
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Finds Contractor Guilty of Fibro Felonies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. House OKs More Time for Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Program Addresses Libby Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inspectors Arrested for Lying About Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Alabama Building
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined Over Fibro Waste Dump
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Majority of New Ships Still Contain Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Missing Out on GBP380MM Fund


                            *********


400 EAST: Tenants May Seek Damages Thru Class Suit, NY Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LORRAINE BORDEN & C., et al., Respondents, v. 400 EAST 55th STREET
ASSOCIATES, L.P., Appellant. YANELLA GUDZ & C., Respondent, v.
JEMROCK REALTY COMPANY, LLC, Appellant. ELISA DOWNING, ET AL.,
Respondents, v. FIRST LENOX TERRACE ASSOCIATES, ET AL.,
Appellants, NOS. 182, 183, 184. 2014 NY Slip Op 08211, are three
putative class actions wherein plaintiffs are current or former
tenants of separate apartment buildings in New York City who seek
damages for rent overcharges. They allege that their units were
decontrolled in contravention of Rent Stabilization Law Section
26-516(a) (RSL) because their landlords accept tax benefits
pursuant to New York City's J-51 tax abatement program (now
Administrative Code of New York Section 11-243). To qualify for
the J-51 program exemption, landlords must relinquish their rights
under the decontrol provisions of the RSL while they benefit from
the exemption.

Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the Court of Appeals of New York's
decision in Roberts v Tishman Speyer Props., LP (13 N.Y.3d 270
[2009]), where it held that a landlord receiving the benefit of a
J-51 tax abatement may not deregulate any apartment in the
building pursuant to the luxury decontrol laws (13 NY3d at 286).
Prior to Roberts, the New York State Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) took the position that where
participation in the J-51 program was not the sole reason for the
rent regulated status of a building, particular apartments could
be luxury decontrolled. As a consequence, many landlords
decontrolled particular apartments in their buildings, charging
tenants market rents, while at the same time receiving J-51 tax
abatements.

All plaintiffs initially sought treble damages in their
complaints, but then waived that demand through attorney
affirmation. Because of the number of plaintiffs from each
building who seek damages for rent overcharges, the question
arises whether these claims can properly be brought as class
actions.

The Court of Appeals of New York held that Civil Practice Law and
Rules 901 (b) permits otherwise qualified plaintiffs to utilize
the class action mechanism to recover compensatory overcharges
under Roberts, even though RSL Section 26-516 does not
specifically authorize class action recovery and imposes treble
damages upon a finding of willful violation. It found the recovery
of the base amount of rent overcharge to be actual, compensatory
damages, not a penalty, within the meaning of CPLR 901 (b).  The
Court also did not believe it contravenes the letter or the spirit
of the RSL or CPLR 901 (b) to permit tenants to waive treble
damages in these circumstances when done unilaterally and through
counsel.

The NY Court of Appeals, therefore, concluded that the authors of
RSL Section 26-516 (a) had, at least, a reasonable basis for
calling the untrebled remedy that plaintiffs here are seeking a
"penalty." Because it is a penalty, it may not be recovered in a
class action.

"For Case No. 182: Order is affirmed, with costs, and certified
question answered in the affirmative," ruled the NY Appeals Court
in its November 24, 2014 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/WfAOJifrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Turkel, for appellant.
Christian Siebott, for respondents.
Case No. 183:

Magda L. Cruz, for appellant.
Christian Siebott, for respondent.
Case No. 184:

Todd E. Soloway, for appellants.
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, for respondents.


AAMCO TRANSMISSIONS: Ex-Franchise Owners File RICO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two former AAMCO Transmissions Inc.
franchise owners recently filed a class action lawsuit on behalf
of other franchisees, claiming the company, its affiliates and
corporate representatives fraudulently induced them to purchase a
franchise or continue to operate a franchise.

AAMCO is a Horshman, Pa.-based franchisor of transmission and
automotive repair centers.  It and American Driveline Systems,
American Capital LTD and American Driveline Centers are defendants
in the case, which was brought by Thomas W. Furlong Jr. of
Maryland and Gustavo Soto of Colorado in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act.

The Nov. 19 lawsuit claims a three-pronged "scheme" by AAMCO:

First, it allegedly fraudulently induces franchisees to purchase
centers by intentionally misrepresenting the contractual
relationship between franchisee and franchisor and the financial
prospects of the franchisee.

Second, it allegedly willfully teaches and encourages franchisees
to engage in deceptive business practices for profit; it allegedly
participates in "franchise churning" -- profit through frequent
franchisee turnover, and it allegedly charges the franchisees
illegal, undisclosed and inflated fees.

Third, it allegedly conspired with fellow defendant Michael Ganjei
to misrepresent material information to franchisees and mislead
them about the health of the system.

The conclusion of this scheme, the lawsuit claims, is an
inevitable failure by franchisees who lose their entire investment
while the defendants allegedly "take control of the center through
use of intimidation and threats of financial ruin."

Thirty-nine percent of AAMCO franchisees that used Small Business
Association financing to open their centers are currently in
default of those loans, the suit claims.

Other defendants include Bret Bero, the principal at American
Capital Ltd.; Marc Graham, the former chairman of the board of
directors of AAMCO and ADL; Michael Sumsky, the CFO at AAMCO and
secretary of AAMCO, ADL and Cottman; Brian O'Donnell, the senior
vice president of operations for AAMCO; Todd Leff, the former CEO
of AAMCO who led the merger of Cottman Transmissions and AAMCO;
and Brett Ponton, the current president and CEO of AAMCO and
American Driveline.  Mr. Ganjei is the president of the National
AAMCO Dealers Association.

Attorneys Jonathan E. Fortman Florissant, Mo. and Benjamin J.
Willmann of Clayton, Mo., are representing the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:14-cv-01287.


ACME SMOKED: Recalls 564 Lbs. of Imported Smoked Nova Salmon
------------------------------------------------------------
Acme Smoked Fish Corporation of Brooklyn, NY is voluntarily
recalling 564 pounds of its Imported (Product of Denmark) Acme
4oz. (113g) vacuum packs of Smoked Nova Salmon with lot code of
L.05122014 because it may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes.  This organism can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy persons may
suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

This product was distributed to Giant Food of Landover, MD, which
operates supermarkets in Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, and the
District of Columbia.

The contamination was noted after routine testing by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in one 4 ounce package of
"Imported (Product of Denmark) Acme 4oz. Smoked Nova Salmon" with
product lot code L.05122014.

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


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased Aeterna securities
between June 26, 2012 and November 5, 2014, inclusive.  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Aeterna securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 12, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Aeterna is a specialty biopharmaceutical Company engaged in
developing novel treatments in oncology and endocrinology.  The
Company's pipeline encompasses compounds at various stages of
development, none of which are currently available for sale to the
public.  AEZS's primary drug development candidates include
zoptarelin doxorubicin and MACRILENTM in oncology and
endocrinology respectively.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the safety and efficacy of the Company's drug MACRILEN,
which was meant to serve as a diagnostic test for adult growth
hormone deficiency ("AGHD").  However, contrary to Defendants'
false and misleading statements, which caused the Company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices, AEZS' primary
clinical trial failed to adequately prove that MACRILEN acted as
an effective diagnostic test and, therefore, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") denied the Company's application to
market the drug publicly.  Upon disclosure of these material
adverse facts, the Company's stock lost almost 50% of its value.

On November 6, 2014, the Company announced that it had received a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA, advising that it
would not approve the Company's MACRILEN NDA.  The Company stated
that the FDA's letter advised the Company that: "the planned
analysis of the Company's pivotal trial did not meet its stated
primary efficacy objective as agreed to in the Special Protocol
Assessment agreement letter between the Company and the FDA."  The
CRL further raised issues related to the lack of complete and
verifiable source data for determining whether patients were
accurately diagnosed with AGHD.  The FDA concluded that, "in light
of the failed primary analysis and data deficiencies noted, the
clinical trial does not by itself support the indication."

On this news, shares of Aeterna fell $0.64 per share, or more than
49.60%, to close at $0.65 per share on November 6, 2014.

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


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Aeterna
Zentaris Inc., on Nov. 21 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of a class comprising purchasers
of Aeterna securities between October 18, 2012 and November 5,
2014, inclusive.

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

Aeterna is a specialty biopharmaceutical company engaged in the
development and commercialization of novel treatments in oncology
and endocrinology.  The Company is developing macimorelin -- an
orally active small molecule that stimulates the secretion of
growth hormone -- as a treatment for Adult Growth Hormone
Deficiency.  The Complaint alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects.  Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose that: (1) the planned analysis of macimorelin's pivotal
clinical trial failed to meet its primary efficacy endpoint
pursuant to the Special Protocol Assessment agreement letter
between the Company and the FDA; (2) insufficient data existed to
confirm that the patients in the clinical trial were accurately
diagnosed with Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency; (3) a serious
cardiac event could have been attributed to macimorelin; (4) as a
result, the FDA would not approve the New Drug Application for
macimorelin in its present form; and (5), the Company's statements
about its business, operations and prospects, including statements
about macimorelin's prospects for FDA approval, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 6, 2014, the Company revealed that the FDA determined
that the New Drug Application for macimorelin could not be
approved in its present form.  The FDA concluded that the planned
analysis of the Company's pivotal trial did not meet its stated
primary efficacy objective, and "in light of the failed primary
analysis and data deficiencies noted, the clinical trial does not
by itself support the indication."  In addition, the FDA noted
that a serious event of electrocardiogram QT interval prolongation
occurred for which attribution to the drug could not be excluded,
and a dedicated QT interval study would be necessary.  Following
this news, Aeterna shares declined nearly 50%, or $0.64 per share,
to close on November 6, 2014, at $0.65 per share, on unusually
heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than January 12, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, or Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


AGENCE METROPOLITAINE: Superior Court Approves Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Crawford & Company (Canada) Inc. on Nov. 21 disclosed that the
Superior Court of Quebec has approved the out-of-court settlement,
with no admission of liability, of the class action launched
against the Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT) due to
distruptions in its commuter train service on the Deux-Montagnes
and Dorion-Rigaud (now Vaudreuil-Hudson) lines.

Class members can now make a claim by filling out the online form
available at www.crawford.AMTclaim.ca or by calling the claims
administrator at 1-877-739-8942.

Class members who submit a valid claim will receive a payment
ranging from $29 to $49, depending on the number of claims.

Class members have to submit their claim by no later than
January 20, 2015.  No claim will be accepted after that date.

For further information: Me Normand Painchaud, Sylvestre Fafard
Painchaud s.e.n.c.r.l., 740, avenue Atwater, Montreal, QC, H4C
2G9, 514-937-2881 poste 223 / n.painchaud@sfpavocats.ca

                           *     *     *

MEMBERS CAN NOW SUBMIT CLAIMS

In February 2009, Mr. Yves Boyer launched a class action against
the Agence metropolitaine de transport (AMT) due to delays in its
commuter train service on the Deux-Montagnes and Dorion-Rigaud
(now Vaudreuil-Hudson) lines. The parties have reached a
settlement. The settlement was approved by the Superior Court of
Qu‚bec on November 18, 2014, and Members of the class action may
now submit their claims.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
The settlement stipulates that the AMT, with no admission of
liability, will pay a sum of $977,000 which will be used to make
payments of up to $49 to each Member of the class action.

The fees of the Claims Administrator, the legal fees of the
lawyers of the class action and an indemnity for the
representative of the Members will also be paid from the sum paid
by the AMT.

If not all of the sum is distributed to the Members, then any
balance will be paid, in equal parts, to two non-profit
organizations involved in public transportation.

CAN I MAKE A CLAIM?
You are a Member and may make a claim if, in January or February
2009:

You held a monthly pass (TRAIN or TRAM);

You used the AMT commuter trains weekdays between 6:00 AM and 9:00
AM or between 4:00 PM and 7:00PM;

You used the commuter trains on the Deux-Montagnes or the Dorion-
Rigaud (now Vaudreuil-Hudson) line.

HOW CAN I MAKE A CLAIM?
You have to, by no later than January 20, 2015:

Fill out the online Claim Form; or

Contact the Claims Administrator or the lawyers of the class
action to obtain a hard copy of the Claim Form;

Return the Claim Form by email or by mail.

You must submit with the Claim Form a copy of a valid ID card with
your name and address.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Directed-Verdict Motions Denied in Nexium Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a Boston federal judge on Nov. 24 denied directed-verdict motions
in the antitrust class action against AstraZeneca PLC and two
generic drug companies, keeping the plaintiffs' case alive yet
weaker after adverse rulings.

U.S. District Judge William Young on Nov. 24 denied defense bids
for a directed verdict.  His brief verbal bench ruling in In re
Nexium Antitrust Litigation followed two Friday hearings about the
issue.

The case is about AstraZeneca's Nexium gastrointestinal drug and
billions of dollars of pharmaceutical sales.  The plaintiffs, who
include consumers, employee benefit funds, pharmacies and grocery
companies, are pursuing claims over AstraZeneca's alleged "pay for
delay" deal to keep Ranbaxy out of the generic market until May
2014.

Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
are the other defendants. An earlier co-defendant, Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Inc., settled.

In 2005, AstraZeneca sued Ranbaxy in New Jersey federal court,
claiming that Ranbaxy's proposed generic would infringe six of its
patents. AstraZeneca's case challenged Nexium's expected generic
launch in 2008, after it cleared U.S. Food and Drug Administration
procedures.

The 2008 case settlement included Ranbaxy's agreement to delay a
competing generic drug until May 2014, after AstraZeneca's
medicine patent expired.

Plaintiffs claim that, without the deal, Ranbaxy would have
produced the first generic Nexium much sooner.

The plaintiffs are relying on witness testimony about an alleged
AstraZeneca promise not to launch an authorized generic to compete
with Nexium's.  Their case also alleges that AstraZeneca funneled
money to Ranbaxy through several complex manufacturing and supply
agreements.  The plaintiffs lawyers have pegged AstraZeneca's
alleged total compensation to Ranbaxy at about $700 million.

After the ruling, two other parts of the plaintiffs' multipronged
conspiracy theory were wounded or knocked out of the case.

In a Nov. 21 bench ruling, Judge Young struck the plaintiffs'
theory that Ranbaxy and Teva colluded with each other.  The judge
also expressed "grave doubts" about the plaintiffs' theory about
AstraZeneca's alleged collusion with Teva, but decided to keep
Teva in the case through the verdict.


ATP OIL: Securities Suit vs. Execs. Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RELIEF FUND OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. T.
PAUL BULMAHN, ET AL., Section: R., CIVIL ACTION NOS: 13-3935, 13-
6083, 13-6084, 13-6233, (E.D. La.) is a securities class action
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation in the public market during the period
December 16, 2010 through ATP's bankruptcy filing on August 17,
2012. Because it is in bankruptcy proceedings, ATP is not named as
a defendant in this action. Instead, court-appointed Lead
Plaintiffs Brian M. Neiman, William R. Kruse, and the Moshe Issac
Foundation, individually and on behalf of the class, are suing
ATP's senior executives, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Defendants T. Paul Buhlman, Albert
L. Reese, Jr., Keith R. Godwin, and Leland E. Tate filed a motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint for
failure to state a claim on March 27, 2014.

District Judge Sarah S. Vance, in her order and reasons entered
November 21, 2014, granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' Exchange Act and Section 20(a) claims without
prejudice and with leave to amend within 21 days of the order. The
Court also noted that the Consolidated Class Action Complaint that
was the subject of the ruling often listed pages and pages of
block quotes followed by a list of purported reasons that the
statements on the preceding pages were false and misleading. This
type of pleading does not satisfy the PSLRA requirements that
plaintiffs identify each statement alleged to be misleading and
the reasons why the particular statement was misleading when made,
held Judge Vance. The Court cautioned plaintiffs to avoid this
type of pleading if they elect to amend the complaint.

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

Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund of the City of New Orleans,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon, Lemmon Law Firm,
Donald A Broggi, Scott & Scott LLP, Irma L. Netting, Lemmon Law
Firm & Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP.

Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Lead Plaintiff per
doc #63, Plaintiff, represented by Louis Leo Robein, III, Robein,
Urann, Spencer, Picard & Cangemi, APLC, Christopher D Stewart,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Cody R LeJeune, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle S Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Robert R. Henssler, Jr., Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Brian M Neiman, 13-6083, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by William B.
Federman, Federman & Sherwood & Stephen H. Kupperman,
Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Brian Stackhouse, 13-6084, Individually and on behalf of all
others persons similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Sammy Ford, IV, Abraham Watkins Nichols Sorrels Agosto &
Friend.

Thomas J Mansfield, 13-6233, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Thomas J. McKenna, Gainey & McKenna.

T Paul Bulmahn, Defendant, represented by Roy Clifton Cheatwood,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Hamilton P Lindley,
Dean & Lyons, LLP, James P. Sullivan, King & Spalding, LLP,
Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz,
Michael J. Biles, King & Spalding, LLP, Paul R. Bessette, King &
Spalding, LLP, Royale Price, King & Spalding, LLP, Tyler W
Highful, King & Spalding, LLP & Yusuf Bajwa, King & Spalding, LLP.

Albert L Reese, Jr., Defendant, represented by Roy Clifton
Cheatwood, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Hamilton P
Lindley, Dean & Lyons, LLP, James P. Sullivan, King & Spalding,
LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz, Michael J. Biles, King & Spalding, LLP, Paul R.
Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, Royale Price, King & Spalding,
LLP, Tyler W Highful, King & Spalding, LLP & Yusuf Bajwa, King &
Spalding, LLP.

Keith R Godwin, Defendant, represented by Roy Clifton Cheatwood,
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Hamilton P Lindley,
Dean & Lyons, LLP, James P. Sullivan, King & Spalding, LLP,
Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz,
Michael J. Biles, King & Spalding, LLP, Paul R. Bessette, King &
Spalding, LLP, Royale Price, King & Spalding, LLP, Tyler W
Highful, King & Spalding, LLP & Yusuf Bajwa, King & Spalding, LLP.

Chris A Brisack, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel,
III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin Boldissar,
Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip Guy
Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

Arthur H. Dilly, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel,
III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin Boldissar,
Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip Guy
Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

Gerard J. Swonke, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel,
III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin Boldissar,
Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip Guy
Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

Brent M. Longnecker, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick
Kuebel, III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin
Boldissar, Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip
Guy Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

Walter Wendlandt, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel,
III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin Boldissar,
Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip Guy
Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

Burt A. Adams, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel,
III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin Boldissar,
Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip Guy
Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

George R. Edwards, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick
Kuebel, III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin
Boldissar, Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip
Guy Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

Robert J. Karow, Defendant, represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel,
III, Locke Lord, Brent Benoit, Locke Lord, Corby Davin Boldissar,
Locke Lord, Monique M. Lafontaine, Locke Lord & Philip Guy
Eisenberg, Locke Lord.

J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by John
William Hite, III, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC, Erika Lynn
Mullenbach, Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC, Glen Mercer, Salley,
Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC & Peyton C. Lambert, Salley, Hite, Mercer
& Resor LLC.

T Paul Bulmahn, 13-6083, 13-6084, 13-6233, Consol Defendant,
represented by Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, James P.
Sullivan, King & Spalding, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Roy Clifton Cheatwood, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Leland E Tate, 13-6083, 13-6084, 13-6233, Consol Defendant,
represented by Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, James P.
Sullivan, King & Spalding, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Roy Clifton Cheatwood, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Albert L Reese, Jr., 13-6083, 13-6084, 13-6233, Consol Defendant,
represented by Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, James P.
Sullivan, King & Spalding, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Roy Clifton Cheatwood, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

George R Morris, 13-6083, 13-6084, 13-6233, Consol Defendant,
represented by Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, James P.
Sullivan, King & Spalding, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Roy Clifton Cheatwood, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Keith R Godwin, 13-6083, 13-6084, 13-6233, Consol Defendant,
represented by Paul R. Bessette, King & Spalding, LLP, James P.
Sullivan, King & Spalding, LLP, Matthew A. Woolf, Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz & Roy Clifton Cheatwood, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Armada Advisors, Inc., Movant, represented by Eric J. O'Bell,
Gauthier, Houghtaling & Williams.

Summit Capital Management LLC, Movant, represented by Lewis
Stephen Kahn, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC & Melinda A. Nicholson, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC.

Moshe Issac Foundation, 13-6083, 13-6084, Consol Movant,
represented by James H. Gibson, Allen & Gooch, Shashi H Patel,
Ware Jackson Lee & Chambers, LLP, Jeffrey W. Chambers, Ware,
Jackson, Lee & Chambers, LLP, Joshua W. Ruthizer, Wolf Popper,
LLP, Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper, LLP, Patricia I Avery, Wolf
Popper, LLP & Stephen H. Kupperman, Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman,
Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Zohar Asher, 13-6083, Consol Movant, represented by Ronald Dean
Gresham, PayneMitchell Law Group.

Jack D Hart, 13-6083, Consol Movant, represented by Ronald Dean
Gresham, PayneMitchell Law Group.

William Kruse, 13-6083, Consol Movant, represented by Ronald Dean
Gresham, PayneMitchell Law Group, Stephen H. Kupperman,
Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC & William B.
Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

David Callaham, Consol Movant, represented by William B. Federman,
Federman & Sherwood & Stephen H. Kupperman, Barrasso,Usdin,
Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Thomas J Mansfield, 13-6083, 13-6084, Consol Movant, represented
by Thomas J. McKenna, Gainey & McKenna.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Callaghan" Mini Cooper Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CALLAGHAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04794-JD, (N.D. Cal.) is a
consumer class action brought by five named plaintiffs, each of
whom owns a Mini Cooper "S model" vehicle. The defendants are BMW
of North America, LLC (BMW NA) and its ultimate parent corporation
in Germany, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW AG). The operative
version of plaintiffs' complaint centers on defendants' alleged
failure to disclose to consumers that the automatic transmissions
in the S model vehicles are "prone to premature failure." Pending
before the Court are motions to dismiss the complaint.

District Judge James Donato grants the motion brought by BMW NA
with leave to amend, and denies BMW AG's motion as moot.

"The Court dismisses the second amended complaint," wrote Judge
Donato in his November 20, 2014 order, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/Jeshmffrom Leagle.com. "Although
defendants have requested that the dismissal be without leave to
amend, the Court does not agree that is appropriate at this point
in the litigation. With the exception of any unjust enrichment
claim under California law (which is dismissed with prejudice),
the Court cannot say that the pleadings could not possibly be
cured by the allegation of other facts. Plaintiffs may try again
-- likely the last the Court will allow -- to state a claim that
will get them past the pleadings stage. Any amended complaint must
be filed by December 30, 2014. The amended complaint may not add
any new claims or parties without prior leave of court. Defendants
must answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by
January 27, 2015."

"The Court previously ordered the parties not to engage in any
discovery other than the exchange of initial disclosures. That
order will remain in place until further order of the Court,"
Judge Donato addded.

Michael Callaghan, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Michael Isaac Miller
-- imiller@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, Natasha Ketan Mehta,,
Baron Budd & Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron
Budd, P.C.

Matthew Caldwell, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Michael Isaac Miller, Baron Budd, Natasha
Ketan Mehta,, Baron Budd & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C.

Rodney Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Philip Pifko, Baron &
Budd, P.C., Michael Isaac Miller, Baron Budd, Natasha Ketan
Mehta,, Baron Budd & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C.

Jeanne Dose-Alderson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Isaac
Miller, Baron Budd & Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.

Steve Mueller, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Isaac Miller,
Baron Budd & Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C.

BMW of North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino -- tyoshino@cbmlaw.com -- Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP
& Aengus Hartley Carr -- acarr@cbmlaw.com -- Carroll, Burdick &
McDonough LLP.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP & Aengus Hartley Carr,
Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP.


BP PLC: Oil Spill Fraudster Loses Bid to Cut Prison Sentence
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a former mayoral and congressional candidate in Detroit who
was convicted of filing five fraudulent claims tied to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill has lost his bid to reduce his prison
sentence of 15 years.

Duane Montgomery filed claims for more than $2.5 million in
property damage and lost profits he allegedly incurred when tar
balls destroyed the engine of his "pollution monitoring" boat
following the 2010 spill.  He claimed that he was left adrift in
the Gulf of Mexico after his engine failed.

In reality, Mr. Montgomery never owned a boat.  The Michigan
resident drew the largest prison sentence of hundreds of oil spill
claimants who have been convicted of fraud.  BP PLC has
highlighted Montgomery's case in its challenge to the way in which
claims against its $9.2 billion settlement for economic damages
have been administered.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Nov. 24
found that Mr. Montgomery, who ran for mayor of Detroit in 2009
and a congressional seat in 2010, was far from "a typical white-
collar criminal."

"Indeed, he appears to be completely untethered from the truth,"
the panel wrote.  "Perhaps even more troubling is his lack of
remorse about his prevarications.  He continues to maintain that
he was stranded in the Gulf of Mexico when the government proved
beyond any rational doubt whatsoever that he was not there."

Mr. Montgomery's attorney, Gary David Strauss of Strauss & Strauss
in Royal Oak, Mich., did not return a call for comment.  A call to
the U.S. attorney's office in the Eastern District of Michigan,
which prosecuted the case, was not returned.

Many of the people convicted of fraudulently filing claims have
been restaurants and hotel workers, most of whom have pleaded
guilty to mail or wire fraud and been sentenced to a few years of
probation or as much as a year in prison.

Mr. Montgomery, who was convicted in 2013 on three counts of mail
fraud, challenged U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III's
sentencing guidelines calculation, which Mr. Strauss wrote in an
appeal brief was based on incorrect loss amounts and an assumption
that the fraud scheme was a sophisticated one. Mr. Strauss also
accused Murphy of departing from the guidelines due to "personal
sentiment rather than an objective view of an appropriate
sentence."  At one point, Judge Murphy said that he had never seen
a case as "flagrant, outrageous, repulsive and, frankly,
incredible" as this one.

But Mr. Montgomery's fraud, which was based on a series of bogus
invoices and corporate tax returns, and his continued lies in
court, justified the sentence, wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig
Weier in the government's brief.

"Montgomery was not like other, similarly situated defendants --
he was worse, and the district court's sentence reasonably
reflected that," he wrote.

His claims were filed with BP, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility and
the National Pollution Funds Center, which is administered by the
U.S. Coast Guard.  The Gulf Coast Claims Facility, administered by
Ken Feinberg, paid him $43,900 in emergency funds.

The panel, in affirming the judgment, noted Mr. Montgomery's
lengthy criminal history, his cache of guns, a string of frivolous
lawsuits he filed and his ill treatment of women, including his
ex-wife, whom he sued to obtain custody of her children from a
prior marriage "for no other reason than to abuse and terrorize"
her.

"The court further found Montgomery to be a significant danger to
the public, both in terms of his continuing abuse of process, as
well as his assaultive history and undisputed past possession of
numerous high-caliber weapons, ammunition, silencers, and body
armor.  We agree," the panel wrote.


BURGER KING: Settles Junk Fax Class Action for $8.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report
that Burger King Worldwide Inc. has agreed to pay $8.5 million to
settle a real estate company's class action alleging the fast food
giant sent unsolicited faxes to almost 100,000 recipients in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to
documents filed on Nov. 21.

Plaintiff Jay Clogg Realty Group on Nov. 21 filed a consent motion
for approval of the settlement, under which Burger King will pay
out up to $8.5 million to class members who can show they received
a fax from March 2009 through Nov. 17 at one of the roughly 97,000
unique fax numbers associated with the class.  Claimants can
receive a maximum cash benefit of up to $500 per fax received, up
to a maximum of eight faxes.

Burger King denies all wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

Jay Clogg filed suit in March 2013 alleging it received several
fax advertisements from Burger King advertising the fast food
chain's delivery service in December 2012 and in January 2013.
The advertisements did not include an opt-out notice as required
by the TCPA, according to court documents.  Jay Clogg claimed that
even though it is based in Rockville, Maryland, it received
advertisements and coupons for discounts in Houston and New York
City.

Jay Clogg said Burger King benefits from sales through its BK
Delivers program by charging its franchisees monthly royalty fees
of 4.5 percent of gross sales, as well as a monthly advertising
contribution of 4 percent of gross sales.

It also said that by sending the faxes, Burger King interfered
with the class members' use of their property because their fax
machines were encumbered by the transmission of Burger King's
unsolicited advertisements.

On April 16, U.S. District Judge Paul W. Grimm rejected Burger
King's motion to dismiss the proposed class action for failure to
state a claim, saying Jay Clogg had sufficiently alleged that it
received unsolicited fax advertisements that were transmitted by
Burger King even if it didn't expressly allege that it received
the faxes on a traditional, ink-and-paper fax machine.

Judge Grimm also rejected Burger King's attempt to strike the
class allegations by arguing that TCPA actions inherently are not
appropriate for class actions, holding that there is nothing in
the TCPA that precludes class action relief, according to the
opinion.

In the settlement filed on Nov. 21, Burger King agrees not to
object to class counsel's request for attorneys' fees of $2.8
million, or one-third of the settlement amount.

Jay Clogg is represented by Stephen H. Ring; Edward A. Broderick
and Anthony I. Paronich of Broderick Law PC and Matthew P. McCue
of The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue.

Burger King is represented by Daniel S. Blynn and Lauri A.
Mazzucheti of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

The case is Jay Clogg Realty Group Inc. v. Burger King Corp.,
number 8:13-cv-00662, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland.


CARPENTER CO: Settles Foam Price-Fixing Class Suit for $108 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RubberNews.com reports that polyurethane foam makers Carpenter has
agreed to pay $108 million to settle a class action dispute.

The settlement agreement is in exchange for the direct purchaser
class's dismissal of Carpenter defendants -- namely Carpenter Co.,
Carpenter L.P. and Carpenter Holdings -- with prejudice as well as
the release of all claims against Carpenter defendants.

Co-accused Leggett & Platt, Vitafoam, Domfoam International and
Valle Foam Products have all settled their parts in the class
action.

The non-settling defendants are: FFP Holdings, FXI -- Foamex
innovations, Future Foam, Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company
and Mohawk Industries, various Woodbridge companies as well as
Louis and David Carson.  This group of companies will continue to
face the class action suit, which was initiated by Adams Foam
Rubber Company, Cambridge of California, Foam Factory, GCW Carpet
Wholesalers, J&S Packaging and VFP Acquisitions.

Carpenter has already made a $20 million payment towards the final
settlement figure.  The remaining $88 million would have to be
paid within 10 days of the settlement's final approval by the
court.

The period in which the class action claimed that anti-competitive
practices took place was January 1, 1999, to July 31, 2010.

Carpenter's class action settlement was announced three months
after furniture components producer Leggett & Platt reached a
nearly $40 million deal to resolve similar allegations.  Two years
earlier, Vitafoam Inc and Vitafoam Products Canada agreed to pay
up to $15 million to settle the foam price-fixing class action
lawsuit.

Judge Jack Zouhary presided over the northern court district
hearings.


CARRIER CORPORATION: Dist. Court Dismisses "Young" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benita Y. Pearson dismissed the case captioned
JANET YOUNG, etc., Plaintiff, v. CARRIER CORPORATION, Defendant,
CASE NO. 4:14CV0974, (N.D. Ohio) saying the Plaintiff's claim for
breach of express warranty is time-barred and her other claims
fail as a matter of law.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint is granted, concluded Judge Pearson in her November 21,
2014 memorandum of opinion and order available at
http://is.gd/jyeRPFfrom Leagle.com.

Janet Young, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Leon --
jeff@complexlitgroup.com -- Quantum Legal & Jonathan Shub --
jshub@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chelsea Royce
Mikula -- chelsea.mikula@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, John Q.
Lewis -- john.lewis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis & Karl A.
Bekeny -- karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis.


CITY ESCAPE: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Vazquez a/k/a Lauro Vazquez, on behalf of himself, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. City
Escape Garden & Design, LLC and Connie L. Rivera, Case No. 1:14-
cv-09386 (N.D. Ill., November 24, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

City Escape Garden & Design, LLC provides landscaping and
maintenance services and is a nursery and garden center company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CITY LINE: Recalls 1.2MM Lbs. of Frozen Pretzel Hot Dog Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
City Line Foods Manufacturing Co., a Lancaster, PA. establishment,
is recalling approximately 1,196,669 pounds of frozen pretzel hot
dog products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.  The products contain soy lecithin, a known
allergen which is not declared on the product label.

The pretzel dogs were produced on various dates from Feb. 14, 2014
to Nov. 14, 2014.  These products are subject to recall:

"Auntie Anne's All Beef Classic Pretzel Dogs.
"Auntie Anne's Fundraising Pretzel Dogs."
"West Creek Black Angus Beef Pretzel Dogs."
"Kunzler Pretzel Dogs."
"Kunzler Turkey Pretzel Dogs."
"Berks All Beef Pretzel Franks."
"Nathan's Famous Pretzel Dogs."
"City Line Foods Pretzel Dogs."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
or P-34073" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These products
produced were shipped nationwide for retail distribution and
fundraising.  The recall does not affect Auntie Anne's pretzel
stores found in malls, airports and other venues nationwide.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a routine
labeling review.  FSIS inspectors found that a releasing agent
used on contact surfaces during production included soy lecithin,
which was not disclosed on the product label.

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
Heather Neary, Auntie Anne's Inc.'s Chief Marketing Officer at, at
(717) 435-1558.


CITY LINE: Recalls Additional 12,282 Lbs. of Hot Dog Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
City Line Foods Manufacturing Co., a Lancaster, Pa., establishment
is expanding their recall to include an additional 12,282 pounds
of frozen pretzel hot dog products due to misbranding and
undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  This brings the
total pounds of product recalled to 1,208,951 pounds.  The
products contain soy lecithin, a known allergen which is not
declared on the product label.

The recalled products were produced Nov. 14, 2013 - Nov. 14, 2014.

These products are subject to the expanded recall:

"Kunzler Cheddar Pepper Frank Pretzel Dogs."
"Kunzler Pretzel Dogs."
"Kunzler Turkey Pretzel Dogs."
"Berks All Beef Pretzel Franks."

These products are subject to the FSIS recall issued Nov. 15,
2014.

"Auntie Anne's All Beef Classic Pretzel Dogs."
"Auntie Anne's Fundraising Pretzel Dogs."
"West Creek Black Angus Beef Pretzel Dogs."
"Kunzler Pretzel Dogs."
"Kunzler Turkey Pretzel Dogs."
"Berks All Beef Pretzel Franks."
"Nathan's Famous Pretzel Dogs."
"City Line Foods Pretzel Dogs."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
or P-34073" or "34073" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These
products produced were shipped nationwide for retail distribution
and fundraising.  The recall does not affect Auntie Anne's pretzel
stores found in malls, airports and other venues nationwide.

The problem was initially discovered by FSIS personnel during a
routine labeling review.  FSIS inspectors found that a releasing
agent used on contact surfaces during production included soy
lecithin, which was not disclosed on the product label.  The
additional product was discovered by the establishment while
reviewing records as part of their recall activity.  They then
notified FSIS personnel of the issue.  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.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Heather
Neary, Auntie Anne's Inc.'s Chief Marketing Officer, at 1-717-435-
1558.


COLLEGIATE PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wood, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Collegiate Properties, Inc., A Florida corporation, and Harry
Saxton, Case No. 1:14-cv-00221 (N.D. Fla., November 24, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in
Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP PA
      1515 S. Federal Hwy Ste 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Removes Overtime Class Action to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reports that Costco Wholesale
Corp. on Nov. 20 removed to federal court a putative class action
on behalf of some 28,000 California employees who allege wage
theft and unpaid overtime wages, among other labor violations,
saying the suit could cost the warehouse retailer more than $162
million.

The total amount in controversy "easily exceeds $162 million, as
pleaded by plaintiff, even before one considers claims for
attorneys' fees and punitive damages," more than meeting the $5
million federal removal threshold under the Class Action Fairness
Act, Costco argued in removal documents dated Nov. 20.

The potentially massive employment suit takes aim at a company
that's often pointed to as an exemplary employer because of its
relatively high wages and benefits.

Plaintiff Douglas Thompson sued Costco on Oct. 17 in San Diego
Superior Court, alleging the retailer didn't pay regular and
overtime wages, denied rest and meal breaks, and failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.

Costco said the unpaid regular wages claim exceeds $8.5 million
and the overtime wages claim exceeds $4.2 million.  The meal pay
claim could be worth more than $17.1 million, and the rest breaks
pay more than $32 million.

The wage statements claim could add another $71.4 million, and the
failure to pay earned wages upon termination claim could net
plaintiffs $29 million, Costco argued.

The claims pled include wage theft, failure to pay overtime
premium wages, failure to pay all wages due, failure to provide
meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all earned
wages, conversion, fraud, unjust enrichment, waiting time
penalties and unfair business practices.

Thompson sought to establish subclasses including all hourly
workers not paid wages, hourly workers subject to an automatic
deduction of 30 minutes for meal breaks, hourly workers denied
rest breaks and rest premium pay, hourly workers denied meal
breaks and meal premium pay, all hourly workers denied timely
termination pay, all drivers not paid for all hours worked, all
drivers not paid at the legal piece overtime rate, and all drivers
not provided paid rest breaks.

Costco is represented by Kenwood C. Youmans, David D. Kadue,
Timothy M. Rusche, and Emily E. Schroeder of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The plaintiff is represented by William Turley and David Mara of
The Turley Law Firm APLC.

The case is Douglas Thompson et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
case number 14-cv-2778, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.


CVS PHARMACY: Deadline to File Class Deal Motion Moved to Dec. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a labor class action complaint filed by employees of
CVS Pharmacy led by Letecia Ceja-Corona entered into a court-
approved stipulation for an extension of the deadline to file the
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement
through Dec. 12, 2014.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement in late July 2014.  By September, at the Court's
directive, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion and supporting
documents.  However, in late October, after conducting a hearing,
Magistrate Judge Boone recommended for the motion to be denied.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs withdrew their motion and for
preliminary approval in order to meet and confer with Defendants
and revise the settlement terms according to the findings and
recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Boone.

The parties relate that they are in the process of revising the
settlement terms to address the issues raised by the Court's Order
and expect to have a new stipulation of settlement executed by
late November.

Among other things, the parties expect to agree:

  -- to exclude the release of reporting time pay claims without
     altering the monetary terms of the settlement; and

  -- to agree to put the Labor & Workforce Development Agency on
     notice of the monetary allocation for the PAGA claim.

The case is LETICIA CEJA-CORONA; MARGARITA RUBIO ARMENTA on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01868-AWI-DLB (E.D. Cal.).  Under the
action, the employee plaintiffs complained of CVS Pharmacy's
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, and wages upon
termination, among other things.

A copy of the District Court's Nov. 14, 2014 order is available at
http://is.gd/RUBG9Tfrom Leagle.com.

DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. DAVID H. YEREMIAN, HUGO E.
GAMEZ, Attorneys for Plaintiffs LETICIA CEJA-CORONA, and MARGARITA
RUBIO ARMENTA on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated.

LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Jody Landry, Esq. -- jlandry@littler.com
-- Attorneys for Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc.


DUMONT PUBLIC: Trial Judge's Ruling in J.T. Case Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
In J.T., ON HER OWN BEHALF, ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILD, A.T.,
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. DUMONT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE DUMONT PUBLIC SCHOOLS
BOARD OF EDUCATION, EMANUELE TRIGGIANO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DUMONT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND PAUL BARBATO,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL SERVICES FOR THE
DUMONT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants-Respondents, DOCKET NO. A-2424-
12T1, the issue before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division was whether one component of an appropriate special
education placement violates the Law Against Discrimination's
(LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to-42, prohibition against discrimination
due to a disability. Plaintiff J.T., on behalf of herself, her
minor son A.T., and all Dumont students similarly situated,
appeals from the Chancery Division order granting summary judgment
in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed
to accommodate the putative class members' disabilities in
violation of the LAD by refusing to provide the special education
services that the special needs students require in their
neighborhood schools. Defendants are the Dumont school district,
the Board of Education, the district superintendent, and the
director of special services.

On November 24, 2014, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division held that plaintiffs did not demonstrate they were
deprived of a benefit due to a disability and thus failed to make
a prima facie showing of disability discrimination under the LAD.
The trial judge's ruling holding that they failed to establish a
prima facie case under the LAD for disability discrimination is
therefore, affirmed.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/t94llGfrom
Leagle.com.

John D. Rue -- JohnR@rueziffra.com -- argued the cause for
appellant (Law Offices of John Rue, attorneys; Maryam Jazini
Dorcheh (White & Case), Jack E. Pace, (White & Case) of the New
York bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Peter E. Wilhelm (White &
Case) of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).

Eric L. Harrison -- harrison@methwerb.com -- argued the cause for
respondents (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys; Mr. Harrison and
Boris Shapiro -- shapiro@methwerb.com -- on the brief).

Ruth Deale Lowenkron -- rlowenkron@edlawcenter.org -- argued the
cause for amici curiae Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates,
Disability Rights New Jersey, Education Law Center, New Jersey
Special Education Practitioners, Statewide Parent Advocacy
Network, and the Special Education Clinic of Rutgers University-
Newark (Education Law Center, attorneys; Ms. Lowenkron, on the
brief).


E'LAN LLC: "Freeman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Freeman and others similarly situated v. E'lan, LLC and
Harold Feener, Case No. 3:14-cv-02289 (M.D. Tenn., November 24,
2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

E'lan, LLC is a licensed building contractor in Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Russell, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Telephone: (615) 354-1144
      E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


E.I. DU PONT: Feb. 5 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Class Action Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that DuPont has
again asked a federal judge to dismiss a paint price-fixing class
action lawsuit against it after claiming the plaintiffs failed to
close claim gaps in their second amended complaint.

DuPont asked District Judge Beth Labson Freeman to dismiss the
complaint, stating that the court should strike all of the
plaintiffs' class allegations because the named plaintiffs and
their counsel "impermissibly seek to represent two classes -- the
'merchant class' and the 'consumer class' that have inherent and
unavoidable conflicts."

The motion to dismiss was filed Nov. 17 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

"Plaintiffs' amended pleading continues to exhibit many of the
fundamental defects the court found dispositive in its September
22, 2014 order granting (with few exceptions) defendants' motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint," the motion
states.

In the court's Sept. 22 order, in which it granted the motion to
dismiss in part with leave to amend, the court found that the
plaintiffs, indirect purchasers of titanium dioxide, known as
TiO2, failed to adequately allege that they suffered an injury
that was traceable to the alleged anticompetitive conspiracy among
the defendants, who represent a portion of the global
manufacturers of TiO2.

"Plaintiffs sought to bring claims with regard to each and every
product containing TiO2 as a chemical component, while offering no
allegations to show that they could ever hope to trace alleged
overcharges by defendants through myriad manufacturing and
distribution chains down to merchants and end users of the
products," the motion states.

"Plaintiffs' sparse allegations were insufficient to support
constitutional standing and antitrust standing, as well as
inadequate to state substantive claims under the many state laws
they invoked (including laws of states in which they did not
reside)."

With the plaintiffs' second amended complaint, they attempt to
remedy some of the first amended complaint's shortcomings,
according to the motion.

"But those revisions are to no avail," the motion states.  "Even
'architectural coatings' encompasses thousands of products with
very different formulations and concentrations of TiO2."

The plaintiffs' new causation allegations remain "vague,
conclusory, and . . . demonstrate that it would be impossible to
trace the effect -- if any -- of defendants' purported conspiracy
down every level of every manufacturing and distribution chain to
merchants and consumers."

Los Gatos Mercantile Inc.; Fred Swaim Inc.; Ace Hardware of South
Walton Inc.; Lexington Home Center LLC; R.F. Cole Inc.; Abbott
Paint And Carpet, Inc.; Proctor's Building Materials Inc.;
Greene's Hardware & Supply Company Inc.; Columbare Inc.; Jan
Harrison; Lee Ranalli; Morgan Tanner; Spencer Hathaway; Todd
Turley; Debbie Hale; Keli Anno; Deanna Deveney; Christopher Kuon-
Tsen Lee; Jim Buckingham; Tanda Saxton; John Wozniak; Jerome
Sherman; Beverly Jenkins; David Petersen; Tom Stever; Brian Bawol;
Ransome Foose; and Stacy Franklin filed their class action
complaint on March 15, 2013, and amended it on Nov. 4, 2013 and
Oct. 14.

The plaintiffs claim E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company; Huntsman
International LLC; Kronos Worldwide Inc.; National Titanium
Dioxide Company Limited; and Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Inc.
have manipulated the price of titanium dioxide since 2002.

DuPont and its competitors have held secret meetings to exchange
commercial information, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of all persons and
business entities who, from Jan. 1, 2002, through the present,
have purchased architectural coatings containing titanium dioxide
in the United States indirectly from one or more of the named
defendants, their agents and/or co-conspirators.

DuPont, Kronos and National Titanium Dioxide Company Limited,
which does business as Cristel, have been accused of paint price-
fixing in the past.

In 2010, consumers filed a similar antitrust lawsuit in Maryland
federal court concerning the alleged price-fixing of titanium
dioxide.  A settlement was reached in the amount of $72 million
from DuPont, $50 million from Cristal and $35 from Kronos after
three years of litigation.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for Feb. 5.

The plaintiffs are represented by Charles F. Barrett of Charles
Barrett PC in Nashville, Tenn.; Don Barrett and Brian K.
Herrington of Barrett Law Group in Lexington, Miss.; Jonathan W.
Cuneo, Katherine Van Dyck and Victoria Romanenko of Cuneo Gilbert
and LaDuca LLP in Washington; Sandra Watson Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert
and LaDuca LLP in Los Angeles; Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates in San Jose, Calif.; Thomas P. Thrash of Thrash Law
Firm PA in Little Rock, Ark.

The defendants are represented by Noah L. Browne --
Noah.Browne@aporter.com -- Ryan Z. Watts and James L. Cooper --
James.Cooper@aporter.com -- of Arnold and Porter LLP in
Washington; Robert Hallman of Arnold and Porter LLP in San
Francisco; Timothy G. Cameron -- tcameron@cravath.com -- Darin P.
McAtee -- dmcatee@cravath.com -- and Evan R. Chesler --
echesler@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP in New
York; and others.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 5:13-cv-01180


EXQUISITE DELICATESSEN: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MD. Asif Khan and Mahtab Alam, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Exquisite Delicatessen Inc. d/b/a
Green Cafe, J & J Co. Of New York Inc., d/b/a Green Cafe 88th
Street, Jamil Uddin, Faruque Ahmed and Jakey Patwari, Case No.
1:14-cv-09386 (S.D.N.Y., November 25, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay lawful minimum wages and
overtime premium pay.

The Defendants own and operate the Green Cafe restaurant located
at 1324 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan A. Bernstein, Esq.
      LEVY DAVIS & MAHER, LLP
      39 Broadway, Suite 1620
      New York, New York 10006
      Telephone: (212)371-0033


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Certification Bid Dates in Bueche Suit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case LAURIE BUECHE and KELLY COLLIER, individually, on
behalf of themselves, and all persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01114-JAM-EFB, (E.D.
Cal.), District Judge John A. Mendez approved the parties'
stipulation to vacate class certification filing dates.

The parties asked for a vacation of the class certification filing
dates because they have reached a settlement of the class claims
asserted in the action following a private mediation held before
Deborah Rothman, Esq.  The parties thus anticipate a motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement in the coming weeks.

A copy of the District Court's Nov. 13, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/drtTtAfrom Leagle.com.

Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawlj.com , Kyle R. Nordrehaug --
kyle@bamlawlj.com , Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com , and Piya
Mukherjee, BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, La Jolla, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Curtis A. Graham -- cagraham@littler.com , Michelle Rapoport --
mrapoport@littler.com , LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Los Angeles, CA,
Attorneys for Defendant.


FIREEYE INC: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
John E. Collins, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FireEye, Inc., David G. Dewalt, Michael J.
Sheridan, Ashar Aziz, and Kevin Mandia, Case No. 5:14-cv-05204
(N.D. Cal., November 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Fireeye, Inc. is a pioneer of a purpose-built, virtual machine-
based security platform that provides real-time threat protection
and prevention to its clients worldwide.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Fireeye,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
              manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 588-5516
      Facsimile: (484) 450-2582
      E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


FLYING COW: Recalls One Lot of Whole Milk Yogurt
------------------------------------------------
Flying Cow Creamery is voluntarily recalling one lot of whole milk
yogurt due to a faulty time and temperature recording during
pasteurization.  Pasteurization heats milk to eliminate all
illness-causing bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes and
Salmonella.

The process of making yogurt at Flying Cow Creamery takes the milk
beyond the required pasteurization time.  However, during the
production of Batch 70, the time and temperature recorder
malfunctioned leaving no record that the yogurt was properly
pasteurized.  As a precaution, Flying Cow Creamery is voluntarily
recalling one batch of yogurt.  They are not aware of any illness
or complaints associated with the recalled yogurt.

Batch number 70 with a Best Before date of 12/3 yogurt has been
recalled.  The batch number and best before date can be found on
the top of the container.  The product is sold in 32 oz returnable
glass jars with white caps.  Recalled yogurt was sold at retail
locations in Rochester, Olympia, Seattle, Chehalis, Federal Way
and Tacoma.

Washington State Department of Agriculture discovered inadequate
pasteurization records during a routine inspection.  A review of
the pasteurization recorder charts did not prove adequate time for
pasteurization.  The recorder chart may not have been operating
correctly.


GEORGIA: Ruling in Sentinel Offender Cases Upheld in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
Several cases present constitutional and statutory questions
arising from the use of private probation companies by Georgia
courts to provide misdemeanor probation supervision services.
Thirteen plaintiffs filed individual civil actions against
Sentinel Offender Services, LLC, a private for-profit probation
servicing entity, and other defendants seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages based on claims that Sentinel
unlawfully collected probation supervision fees from plaintiffs
and violated their due process rights. Among other things, the
plaintiffs: (1) challenged the constitutionality of OCGA Section
42-8-100 (g) (1), Georgia's private probation statute; (2) alleged
that OCGA Section 42-8-30.1 precludes tolling of misdemeanor
probation sentences and restricts the conditions that may be
imposed on probationers in misdemeanor cases including that
electronic monitoring is not allowed; (3) challenged Sentinel's
authority to provide misdemeanor probation services to the
Superior Court of Columbia County; and (4) sought to recover from
Sentinel probation supervision fees plaintiffs contend Sentinel
unlawfully collected from them and other damages. All thirteen
actions were assigned as companion cases to Superior Court Judge
Daniel J. Craig of the Augusta Judicial Circuit, who conducted
joint hearings on various motions filed by the individual
plaintiffs and by Sentinel.

The cases are SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. GLOVER et al.; and
vice versa. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC et al. v. GILYARD et al.;
and vice versa. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. TENNILLE et al.;
and vice versa. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. OSBORN et al.; and
vice versa. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. MARTIN et al.; and
vice versa. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. CASH et al.; and vice
versa. ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. CASH et al. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS.,
LLC v. ASHLEY et al.; and vice versa. ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. ASHLEY
et al. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. HAYES et al.; and vice
versa. ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. HAYES et al. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS.,
LLC v. STEPHENS et al.; and vice versa. ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v.
STEPHENS et al. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC v. BARRETT et al.;
and vice versa. ROUNDTREE, SHERIFF v. BARRETT et al. SENTINEL
OFFENDER SVCS., LLC et al. v. CARTER; and vice versa. ROUNDTREE,
SHERIFF v. CARTER et al. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC et al. v.
HUCKS; and vice versa. SENTINEL OFFENDER SVCS., LLC et al. v.
MANTOOTH; and vice versa, S14A1033/S14X1036, S14A1035/S14X1034,
S14A1037/S14X1038, S14A1039/S14X1040, S14A1041/S14X1042,
S14A1251/S14X1252, S14A1253, S14A1254/S14X1255, S14A1256,
S14A1257/S14X1258, S14A1259, S14A1260/S14X1261, S14A1262,
S14A1263/S14X1264, S14A1265, S14A1266/S14A1267, S14A1268,
S14A1269/S14X1270, S14A1271//S14X1272.

On appeal are two consolidated orders entered contemporaneously by
the trial court in the pending cases. The trial court issued one
order in the five Columbia County cases and another in the eight
Richmond County cases. While the two orders differ somewhat with
respect to the trial court's findings of fact specific to the
cases filed in each county, the trial court determined certain
issues of law and fact were common to all the cases before it and
entered identical rulings in both orders on these issues.

Among other things, the trial court held that OCGA Section 42-8-
100 (g) (1) was not unconstitutional on its face and did not
offend due process or equal protection nor condone imprisonment
for debt; ruled that the statutory framework prohibited private
probation services from having the sentences of misdemeanor
probationers tolled or from collecting fees for electronic
monitoring; found the plaintiffs had a right to recover from
Sentinel any statutorily unauthorized probation supervision fees
Sentinel had collected from them; and, with respect to the
Columbia County plaintiffs, determined that although Sentinel's
contract with the superior court of that county had not been
properly approved by the county governing authority as statutorily
required, mutual mistake and principles of equity prevented
Sentinel from having to disgorge any probation supervision fees
which would have been lawful for Sentinel to collect under a valid
contract. Procedurally, the trial court denied Sentinel's motions
to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted in
part and denied in part Glover's motion for partial summary
judgment, conditionally certified class actions in each county,
and granted injunctive relief to the plaintiffs.

All in all, 32 appeals and cross-appeals have been filed in this
Court seeking review of these orders.

The Supreme Court of Georgia, on November 24, 2014, ruled that
judgments in Case Nos. S14A1033, S14X1034, S14A1035, S14X1036,
S14A1037, S14X1038, S14A1039, S14X1040, S14A1041, S14X1042 are
affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cases remanded with
direction.

Meanwhile, judgments in Case Nos. S14A1251, S14X1252, S14A1253,
S14A1254, S14X1255, S14A1256, S14A1257, S14X1258, S14A1259,
S14A1260, S14X1261, S14A1262, S14A1263, S14X1264, S14A1265,
S14A1266, S14X1267, S14A1268, S14A1269, S14X1270, S14A1271,
S14X1272 are also affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cases
remanded with direction.

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


GLOBAL RESPONSE: "Murphy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Murphy, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Global Response Corporation, a Florida corporation, Case No. 0:14-
cv-62673 (S.D. Fla., November 24, 2014), seeks to recover overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Global Response Corporation owns and operates call centers in
Florida and Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq.
      THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


GRACO CHILDREN'S: NHTSA Investigates Child Car Seat Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration said on Dec. 1 that it is investigating
whether Graco took too long to report a safety defect in its child
car seats.

Graco Children's Products, a division of Atlanta-based Newell
Rubbermaid Inc., recalled 6.1 million car seats this year because
the buckles could get stuck.  That could put a child's life at
risk in an emergency. It is the largest child seat recall in U.S.
history.

Federal rules require a manufacturer to report a safety defect
within five days of becoming aware of it.  If the investigation
finds the company failed to report the defect in a timely manner,
the company could face up to $35 million in fines.

Graco said on Dec. 1 that it "thoroughly analyzed all data related
to the buckles and took the required actions to keep our consumers
safe."  It said it is cooperating with the NHTSA investigation.

No injuries have been reported because of the problem, the company
said.

The agency and the car seat maker were involved in an extended
dispute over the car seat recall.

When Graco recalled 4.2 million toddler seats in February, the
NHTSA sent a sternly worded letter that questioned why infant car
seats weren't included.  It accused the company of soft-pedaling
the recall with "incomplete and misleading" documents for
consumers.  The company gave in to regulatory pressure and
recalled 1.9 million infant car seats in July.


GRAIN PROCESSING: High Court Won't Hear Appeal in Pollution Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court won't hear an
appeal from an Iowa grain company over a class-action lawsuit
brought by nearby residents.

The justices on Dec. 1 let stand an Iowa Supreme Court ruling that
said residents could bring a nuisance lawsuit against Grain
Processing Corp., which operates a corn processing plant in
Muscatine.

The lawsuit accuses the company of routinely blanketing homes with
soot and harmful chemicals.  A lower court threw out the case, but
the state Supreme Court said claims of nuisance, negligence and
trespass are not barred by the federal Clean Air Act or related
state rules governing air emissions.

Environmental groups backed the lawsuit, but business groups said
regulation of air pollution should be left to state and federal
agencies and not judges on a case-by-case basis.


HENRY'S FARM: Recalls All Packages of Soybean Sprouts
-----------------------------------------------------
Henry's Farm Inc. of Woodford, VA is recalling all packages of
Soybean Sprouts because they may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections to individuals with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

These products are being recalled by the firm.

All clear 1 lb packages of Natto Soybean Sprouts.  These products
are labeled as produced by Henry's Farm Inc.  The packages were
not coded.

All clear 2 lb packages of Bean Sprouts.  These products are
labeled as distributed by Rhee Bros. Inc. Columbia, MD.  The
packages were not coded.

All bulk (approximately 10 lbs.) black plastic bags of Soy Bean
Sprouts.  These products are labeled as produced by Henry's Farm
Inc.  The packages were not coded.

These items were distributed to retail stores in Virginia and
Maryland.

The contamination was discovered after sampling by the Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Food Safety &
Security Program and subsequent analysis by the Virginia Division
of Consolidated Laboratory Services revealed the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in the products.  No illness has been
reported to date.

Individuals who purchased Soybean Sprouts, distributed by Henry's
Farm should return the product to the place of sale for a full
refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company directly at 301-
802-2996 or the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Food Safety and Security Program at 804-786-3520.


HURONIA: Claims Bar Date in Class Action Settlement Expires
-----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on Nov. 21 disclosed that on November 30, the
claims deadline was set to expire in the precedent setting class
action settlements concerning the Huronia, Rideau and Southwestern
Regional Centres.  These three class actions settled for $67.7
million in 2013, the largest settlement in Ontario for
institutional abuse.  Huronia, Rideau and Southwestern were three
of the largest institutions in Canada for people labelled with a
developmental disability.  Huronia opened in 1876, originally
called the Orillia Asylum for Idiots and at one point housed 2,600
people.  All three institutions closed between 2008-2009.  Koskie
Minsky LLP and Mr. Kirk Baert represent the former residents.

The $67.7 million settlement has included implementation of
precedent setting conditions, including:

on December 9th, 2013 Premier Kathleen Wynne delivered an apology
in the Legislative Assembly to all former residents for a  "deeply
flawed" model of care and for the fact that "Their humanity was
undermined; they were separated from their families and robbed of
their potential, their comfort, safety and their dignity";

   -- over 65,000 documents from the lawsuits are now publicly
available online concerning the operation of Huronia, Rideau and
Southwestern;

   -- over 1 million pages of resident files have been provided to
former residents through the claims process, allowing many to
piece together parts of their past;

   -- a registry was created for the 1,440 unmarked graves at the
Huronia cemetery;

   -- hundreds of former residents and supporters toured the
former Huronia centre over the summer; and

   -- dozens of historical artifacts from Huronia are now in the
possession of several universities for academic and research
purposes.

On theclaims deadline of November 30, Mr. Baert remarked that
"These cases concern abuse that happened decades ago when many of
the former residents were children and young adults.  I am happy
that we are approaching a final resolution of these cases and that
the former residents will be able to receive what is long overdue
compensation."  Former residents have until November 30th to
submit a claim, after which they will not be able to make any
claim for compensation.  Inquiries and questions about making a
claim should be directed to Koskie Minsky LLP at 1-866-777-6311.

For further information:
Media inquiries should be directed to Jody Brown at 416-595-2709,
or JBrown@kmlaw.ca


INBOUND CALL: Faces "Reid" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Chantel Reid and Marius St. Gerard v. Inbound Call Experts, LLC
d/b/a Advanced Tech Support, Advanced Tech Supportco, LLC, PC
Vitalware, LLC, Super PC Support, LLC, Robert D. Deignan, Paul
Herdsman, and Justin M. Wright, Case No. 9:14-cv-81472 (S.D. Fla.,
November 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages due to the improper calculation of
employees' regular rate of pay.

The Defendants own and operate an online sales and marketing
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dale James Morgado, Esq.
      Mitchell Lloyd Feldman, Esq.
      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      FELDMAN MORGADO, P.A.
      100 N. Biscayne Blvd.
      29th Floor, Suite 2902
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 222-7850
      Facsimile: (305) 384-4676
      E-mail: dmorgado@fmlawgroup.us
              mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com
              erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com


JAYCO: Recalls Jay Flight Travel Trailer Model
----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           211
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014497
TC ID number:             2014497

On certain travel trailers, the Compliance, Tire information, and
Cargo Carrying Capacity labels do not contain correct cargo
carrying capacity information.  As a result, the vehicle may be
overloaded inadvertently, leading to poor vehicle handling
characteristics, which could result in a crash causing property
damage and/or personal injury.

Correction: Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected
vehicles, along with instructions for proper installation.

Affected products: 2015 Jayco Jay Flight Travel Trailer


K. HEEPS: Recalls 2,902 Lbs. of Bratwurst & Bangers Sausage
-----------------------------------------------------------
K. Heeps, Inc., an Allentown, Pa., establishment is recalling
approximately 2,902 pounds of Bratwurst and Bangers sausage
products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.  The products contain soy lecithin; a releasing
agent used on contact surfaces during production and is a known
allergen.

The Stryker Farm Beer Bratwurst and the Irish Style Bangers
products were packaged on various dates from May 21, 2014 through
Nov. 5, 2014.  These products are subject to recall:

1-lb. retail packages or 20-lb. Bulk Packages containing "All
Natural Artisan Pork Recipe Stryker Farm Irish Style Bangers."

1-lb. retail packages or 20-lb.Bulk Packages containing "All
Natural Artisan Pork Recipe Stryker Farm Beer Bratwurst."

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
9379A" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  These products were
sold to a single vendor, who further distributed it to restaurants
and retailers in the state of Pennsylvania.

The problem was discovered during a periodic label review by FSIS
inspection personnel.  This was not disclosed on the product
label. 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 that
recalling firms have notified customers and taken steps to make
certain that products are no longer available to customers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Beau Heeps, at qa@heeps.com or at 1-610-530-5564.


KASIA'S DELI: Recalls 2,059 Lbs. of Pierogi Products
----------------------------------------------------
Kasia's Deli Inc., a Chicago, IL. establishment, is recalling
approximately 2,059 pounds of pierogi products due to misbranding
and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products
contain wheat, soy, eggs, and milk, known allergens which are not
declared on the product label.

The pierogi (dumplings) products were produced on various dates
prior to Sept. 19, 2014 and include lot numbers #4262 and below.
These products are subject to recall:

11.5-oz. white plastic tray packages containing 6 pieces of
"Polana Beef Pierogi" with product code 608.

11.5-oz. white plastic tray packages containing 12 pieces of
"Polana Beef Pierogi" with product code 108.

14-oz. white plastic tray packages containing 6 pieces of "Polana
Potato and Bacon Pierogi" with product code 630.

14-oz. white plastic tray packages containing 12 pieces of "Polana
Potato and Bacon Pierogi" with product code 130.

14-oz. white plastic tray packages of "Polana Chicken Pierogi"
with product code 126.

The products subject to recall may contain the establishment
number "EST. 33985" or "P- 33985" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.  These products produced were shipped to a distributor
for national online sales.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS investigator during routine
surveillance when the investigator noticed that the packaging
lacked ingredient labels and /or the mark of inspection.

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.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
the Kasia's Deli Inc. at (312) 666-2900.


KENNETH COLE: N.Y. Appellate Court Rejects "Entire Fairness" Test
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
spurning a shareholder challenge to Kenneth Cole's efforts to take
his clothing and footwear company private, a New York state
appellate court has ruled for the first time that judges should
apply the management-friendly business judgment rule to assess
such transactions, provided that certain protections are in place
for minority shareholders. In a concise four-page ruling, the New
York Appellate Division's First Department rejected the
plaintiff's argument that it should use the more stringent and
complicated "entire fairness" test.

The Nov. 20 ruling comes seven months after the Delaware Supreme
Court held in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide that courts should use the
business judgment rule to review going-private deals, provided
that they contain the same features to protect minority
shareholders The Nov. 20 ruling is the first by a New York court
to reach that conclusion.

Tariq Mundiya -- tmundiya@willkie.com -- of Willkie Farr &
Gallagher represented Kenneth Cole.  Andrew Stern --
astern@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin represented a special
committee of company directors.  Willkie's Mundiya also
represented the special committee in the M&F Worldwide case.

In February 2012 Cole announced a plan to take Kenneth Cole
Productions Inc. private at $15 per share -- a 17 percent bump
over the stock's price.  The company's board created a special
committee of four independent directors to negotiate with Cole,
and the deal had to be approved by a majority of the minority
shareholders. The special committee agreed on a slightly higher
price of $15.25 per share, and more than 99 percent of the
minority shares unaffiliated with Cole approved it.

The Erie County Employees Retirement System filed a purported
class action, claiming that the special committee breached its
fiduciary duty by accepting a price that is too low.  It also
claimed that the special committee directors weren't independent
because they were elected by Kenneth Cole, who had 90 percent of
the voting power.  A New York trial court dismissed the case in
September 2013, applying the business judgment rule.  That rule
prohibits courts from scrutinizing the actions of directors in the
absence of evidence of self-dealing, fraud or conflicts of
interest.

In affirming that decision on Nov. 20, the appellate court
specifically rejected Erie County's argument that the court should
use the "entire fairness" test, which entails a fact-finding
inquiry into the deal's fairness.

"This is the first appellate decision under New York law that the
business judgment rule applies to a going-private transaction by a
controlling shareholder where these two protections are built in,"
said Willkie's Mundiya, referring to the creation of the special
committee and the requirement that a majority of the minority
shareholders approved the deal.  He says applying the business
judgment rule in such situations will encourage parties to build
in these protections when planning a going-private deal at the
outset, and reduce burdensome litigation risk at the back end.

Sidley's Stern, who represents the special committee, noted that
this decision fills a void in New York law, which doesn't have
many recent rulings on corporate control contests.  "When the case
started we were operating almost on an empty slate," he said.  He
added that the ruling will allow defendants a chance to win
dismissal before discovery, which wasn't possible before.
Lee Rudy -- lrudy@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
who represents the plaintiff, lamented that the Nov. 20 ruling
shows even more deference to controlling shareholders than the
Delaware Supreme Court did in Kahn v. M&F Worldwide.

"This court said they aren't going to look at whether the deal or
the negotiations were fair at all," said Mr. Rudy.  "This special
committee negotiated from $15 a share to $15.25, just a 1.6
percent increase, and ended up with a price that we specifically
alleged was unfair to shareholders.  That's a pretty lame job when
you look at what special committees usually do, and should have
entitled us to at least take some discovery and prove our case."


KEYSTONE: Recalls Laredo Model Due to Breaker
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           87
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014499
TC ID number:             2014499
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14-219

On certain travel trailers during assembly, a 12 volt mini breaker
was located too close to the propane cylinder.  If the propane
cylinder rubs against the rubber boot of the breaker, it could
wear through and cause a short.  This could result in an increased
risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to property.

Correction: Dealers will relocate the breaker away from the
propane cylinder.

Affected products: 2015 Keystone Laredo


KOOL-KIT: Recalls Neonate Due to Lack of Probe From IFU
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Posting date:             November 7, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42081

Recalled Products: Kool-Kit Neonate

Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products Inc. (CSZ) has initiated a correction
on this medical device due to the omission of the probe IFU from
the Kool-kit neonate.  The Kool-kit neonate has been designed such
that 1 of the individually packaged cat #491B probes is required
for each tray.  Since the probes are received from their
manufacturer in cartons containing 20 probes and 1 IFU, 1 carton
of probes will make 20 Kool-kit neonate trays.  The probe IFU has
not been used during assembly of the Kool-kit neonate trays since
the product was first released for sale on 3/27/2009.  However,
since the probe pouches are labeled with a 3 year shelf life, this
correction only applies to Kool-kit neonates manufactured within
the last 3 years.  The probe IFU includes additional information
that is not included within the labeling provided to the customer
by CSZ.

Companies:

Manufacturer:     Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products Inc.
                  12011 Mosteller Road
                  Cincinnati 45241
                  Ohio
                  United States


KOZY SHACK: Recalls Certain Products Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kozy Shack Enterprises, LLC is voluntarily recalling certain items
of its Foodservice Kozy Shack Simply Well Chocolate Pudding 4 oz.
cups because they contain undeclared milk and lack product
labeling.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction
if they consume these products.

The recalled product was distributed through foodservice
distribution channels and not sold in retail stores.  Product was
distributed to 20 states: Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The product comes in a small, clear 4 oz. plastic container and
contains a yellow lid with the Kozy Shack logo on it.  The carton
in which the product was shipped is identified with these
information:

Lot Number: 31637681
Item Code: 00050000073491
USE BY:31 DEC 14

There have been no illnesses reported, and there are no quality
issues with the product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the milk-
containing product was distributed without complete labeling.

Customers who have purchased this product are urged to discontinue
use of the item and return it to the place of purchase.  Kozy
Shack will work with customers to collect the product.

Foodservice customers can contact Consumer Affairs at 855-716-
1555, Monday 9 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Central Time and Tuesday - Friday
8 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Central Time.


KROGER CO: Recalls Select Containers of Moose Tracks Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. said it is recalling select containers of Private
Selection Denali Extreme Moose Tracks Ice Cream sold in 13 states
because it may contain peanuts not listed on the label.

Private Selection Denali Extreme Moose Tracks Ice Cream sold in
48-ounce containers with a "sell by" date of April 16, 2015 under
the UPC Code: 11110-00456.

Customers should return the product to stores for a full refund or
replacement.  No customer illnesses have been reported to date.

People who are allergic to peanuts could have a serious or life-
threatening reaction if they consume this product.  For consumers
who are not allergic to peanuts, there is no safety issue with the
product.

Stores in the following states are included in this recall: Bakers
stores in Nebraska; Dillons stores located in Kansas and Missouri;
Gerbes stores located in Missouri; Fred Meyer stores located in
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington; Food 4 Less stores located
in California and Nevada; King Soopers and City Market stores
located in Colorado and Wyoming; Ralphs stores located in
California; Smith's stores located in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah
and Wyoming and QFC stores located in Oregon and Washington.

Not included in this recall are Kroger, Food 4 Less (Chicago),
Fry's stores and Smith's stores located in Arizona and New Mexico.

Dillons, Fred Meyer, QFC, King Soopers, City Market, Ralphs, Food
4 Less (west coast), Bakers, Gerbes and Smith's removed items from
store shelves and initiated a customer recall notification system
that alerts customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1
products through register receipt tape messages and phone calls.


LONGTOP FIN'L: Ex-CFO Must Pay Damages for Misleading Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that more
than three years after rampant fraud involving Longtop Financial
Technologies first came to light, class action plaintiffs lawyers
have finally scored a direct hit.  But the lawyers are still far
from a hoped-for payday, and a relatively meager one at that.

A federal jury in Manhattan determined on Nov. 24 that Longtop's
Canadian former CFO, Derek Palaschuk, should pay damages for
recklessly misleading shareholders about the Chinese company's
finances.  The decision -- which could put Mr. Palaschuk on the
hook for more than $5 million, according to the plaintiffs -- came
after jurors reached a verdict on Nov. 21 that Mr. Palaschuk can't
escape liability for ignoring red flags that Longtop's financials
were a sham and failing to warn investors.

It was a slam dunk plaintiffs verdict in an exceedingly rare
securities fraud class action trial.  For the winning lawyers,
though, the victory is bittersweet.

A recovery in the single-digit millions doesn't amount to much in
a case of this magnitude, which still isn't over. (Mr. Palaschuk's
lawyer, John Sylvia -- JSylvia@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, wasn't immediately available to discuss
how he'll respond to the verdict.) The company and its former CEO,
Lian Weizhou, were hit with a massive judgment earlier in the
case, but that money is probably uncollectable.  And the most
deep-pocketed defendant, Longtop auditor Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Ltd., escaped the case long ago.

Grant & Eisenhofer's Daniel Berger -- dberger@gelaw.com -- one of
the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, conceded that that not every
worthy case turns out to be a big moneymaker.  "We're going to try
to collect our judgment," said Mr. Berger.  "Obviously we want to
get paid, but we bring these cases because these are serious
claims, and we're committed to recovering as much as possible for
the class."

Longtop was one of about three dozen U.S.-listed Chinese companies
targeted by the securities class action bar in 2011, amid a spate
of investor reports alleging that the companies' stock prices were
propped up by fraud.  The case against Longtop -- spearheaded by
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Grant & Eisenhofer -- took on an
especially high profile for a couple of reasons.  One was the
sheer scale of the fraud: Longtop was accused of falsifying its
bottom line for years, building up to a $1.08 billion market cap
based on a series of financial fictions.  The other was the legal
and diplomatic spat that ensued when the Securities & Exchange
Commission sought Chinese records from Longtop's auditor,
Deloitte's Shanghai affiliate.

In the end, the biggest defendants in the Longtop case remained
beyond the plaintiffs' reach.  Lawyers at Sidley Austin
representing Deloitte, which was accused of turning a blind eye to
the company's fraud, won their client's dismissal in April 2013.
Kessler Topaz and Grant & Eisenhofer won a whopping $882 million
default judgment against Longtop and the company's Chinese former
CEO last November, but the hope of ever recovering from those
Chinese defendants appears slim to none.

Kimberly Justice -- kjustice@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz, who
took the lead for the plaintiffs at trial, insists that she hasn't
given up on recovering from Longtop and ex-CEO Lian.  For now,
however, the plaintiffs lawyers will focus on trying to collect
from the company's fallen CFO.  Jurors found Mr. Palaschuk liable
for 8 separate statements that misled shareholders over the course
of more than a year before Longtop's collapse.  They apportioned
him 1 percent of the responsibility for an estimated $500 million
to $650 million in losses, with 49 percent apportioned to Longtop
and 50 percent to Mr. Lian.

"We're pleased that jury found Mr. Palaschuk liable for his role
in this incredibly massive fraud, which spanned years and years
and left shareholders holding the bag," Justice said.

Mintz Levin's Sylvia said in an emailed statement that he was
disappointed with the jury's decision.  But, he added, "we are
gratified that the jury placed 99 percent of the responsibility
where it rightfully belonged: at the feet of Longtop and the CEO
who intentionally committed securities fraud."


MAGNA GROUP: "Serber" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Serber, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Magna Group, LLC, Magna Group Capitals?
Management, LLC, Magna Group Partners, LLC, Magna Group Structured
Capital Partners, LP, Magna Ventures, LLC, Magna Equities II, LLC,
Hanover Holdings, I, LLC, Joshua Sason, Marc Manuel, and Michael
Abietbol, Case No. 1:14-cv-09358 (S.D.N.Y., November 24, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards.

The Defendants operate a New York based investment firm that
creates lasting relationships with portfolio companies across
Equities, Ventures, and Entertainment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG, PC
      11 Broadway, Suite 615
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (347) 651-0044
      Facsimile: (212)214-0799


MATTHEW BENDER: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline A. Stewart, Pamela M. Rector, Pamela M. Doyle, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Matthew
Bender & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01426 (N.D.N.Y., November 24,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay the
employees the overtime rate as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Matthew Bender & Co. is a provider of analytical legal information
in print, CD-ROM and online formats.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah J. Burger, Esq.
      COOPER, ERVING LAW FIRM-SARATOGA OFFICE
      63 Putnam Street, Suite 202
      Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
      Telephone: (518) 244-8918
      E-mail: sburger@coopererving.com


MEXX CANADA: Recalls Mini Tights
--------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Posting date:             November 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-41991

Affected products: Mexx Mini Tights

The voluntary recall involves the glued on yellow bows that come
affixed on the Mexx children's tights sold in sizes 3 months
through to 24 months.  The mini grey tights have black stripes on
the leg section and a black star shape on each foot.  These tights
can be identified by style number K1GIA015.

Mexx mini tights recalled include:

   Style Number    Size                     UPC
   ------------    ----                     ---
   K1GIA015        3 - 6 months             8718622689269
   K1GIA015        6 - 12 months            8718622689276
   K1GIA015        12 - 24 months           8718622689283

Mexx has determined that the bows can easily be removed and
present a choking hazard.

Mexx has received one report of the bows falling off, no injuries
resulted.

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

Approximately 337 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada at wholesale and retail stores.

The recalled products were manufactured in Portugal and sold from
July 2014 to Oct. 2014.

Companies:

   Distributor     Mexx Canada Co.
                   Montreal
                   Quebec
                   Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tights.  Mexx
has identified that the tights are still safe to wear without the
bows, therefore, consumers can choose to remove and safely dispose
of the fabric bows or return the tights to where they were
purchased for a full refund with or without receipt for a credit
in store.


MOL GLOBAL: Overstated Fin'l Reports, "Freedman" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Freedman, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
09357 (S.D.N.Y., November 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
had grossly overstated its financial results in the Registration
Statement in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

MOL Global, Inc. operates a payments platform, which connects
consumers with digital content providers, telecommunications
service providers, and online merchants through a network of
distribution channels that accept cash and online payment methods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212)661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             frncconville@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312)377-1181
      Facsimile: (312)377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


MORGAN KEEGAN: Jan. 12 Trial Set for Moberly Bonds Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased bonds issued by the Industrial Development
Authority of the City of Moberly, Missouri with respect to
"Project Sugar" during the period between July 23, 2010, and
September 30, 2011, you are a member of a class certified in
Cromeans, et al. v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc. and Armstrong
Teasdale, United States District Court for the Western Division of
Missouri, Case No. 2:12-cv-04269.

In July 2010, the Industrial Development Authority ("IDA") of the
City of Moberly, Missouri issued municipal bonds in the total
amount of $39 million (the "Moberly Bonds") to build a sucralose
manufacturing facility in Moberly.  The project was sometimes
called "Project Sugar" because sucralose is a modified sugar
molecule used as an artificial sweetener in products like Splenda.
A company called Mamtek U.S. was to manage and operate the
facility.  The lawsuit claims that the Moberly Bonds were sold to
Class Members using untrue and misleading statements and omitting
certain important facts.  Plaintiffs want to cancel their
purchases, get their purchase price back, and get compensation,
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  Morgan Keegan and Armstrong
Teasdale deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing or caused bond
purchasers to lose money.  The Court has not ruled on the legal
claims and defenses in this lawsuit or decided whether the
Plaintiffs are entitled to benefits.  Bond purchasers will not
benefit unless and until the Plaintiffs are successful at trial
and any appeals are resolved in their favor.  The case is set for
trial on January 12, 2015.

A notice of class action regarding your rights as a member of the
class is available at www.noticeclass.com/MoberlyBonds or you can
call 1-800-754-9649, or write Moberly Class Action Administrator,
Tilghman & Co., P.C., P.O. Box 427, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-
0427.

Contacts:
Tilghman & Co.
Steve Tilghman, 800-754-9649


NATURA PET: Recalls Certain Dry Cat and Dry Ferret Food
-------------------------------------------------------
Natura Pet Products has initiated a limited, voluntary recall of
certain dry cat and dry ferret food lots produced in its Fremont,
Nebraska facility.  Due to a formulation error, these products
contain insufficient levels of vitamins and excess minerals.

Pets can become ill if they lack vitamins for prolonged periods.
Early signs of vitamin deficiency may include decreased appetite,
lethargy, and vomiting and weight loss.  If treated promptly,
vitamin deficiency can be successfully reversed.  The presence of
excess minerals in these products poses no health concern.

There have been no reports of animal health concerns to date, but
these lots do not meet the company's quality standards and should
not be consumed by pets.  No other EVO products or lots are
affected by this issue.

The affected product and lot codes are:

   -- 15.4 lb. Grain Free Turkey & Chicken Formula dry cat &
      kitten food with 4300A700D2 lot code;

   -- 2.2 lb. of Grain Free Turkey & Chicken Formula dry cat &
      kitten food with 4301A700A4 lot code;

   -- 2.2 lb. of Grain Free Turkey & Chicken Formula dry cat &
      kitten food with 4301A700B4 lot code;

   -- 2.2 lb. od Grain Free Turkey & Chicken Formula dry cat &
      kitten food with 4301A700C4 lot code; and

   -- 6.6 lb. of Grain Free Ferret Food 4300A700D3 lot code.

The problem was discovered during the investigation of an
ingredient inventory discrepancy.  Only these 5 lots are affected.
These lots were distributed through independent retailers in CA,
GA, MI, MN, NV, PA, TX, VT and Canada, as well as online.  No
other Natura products are affected.

Retailers have been contacted and are instructed to immediately
withdraw these lots from store shelves.  Consumers who purchased
the product should discontinue feeding the product immediately and
discard as normal household waste.  The company apologizes for the
inconvenience caused by this incident.  The company is taking
immediate corrective action as a result of its investigation.

For more information, consumers can reach Natura Consumer
Relations at 1-855-206-8297, Monday through Friday.


NATURE'S PATH: Court Narrows "Leonhart" Misbranding Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Susan Leonhart brought a putative class action against Nature's
Path Foods, Inc., alleging that many of the Defendant's food
products are "misbranded" and labeled in a misleading fashion.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing and under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Alternatively, the Defendant requested that the litigation be
stayed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss.  Leave to amend is granted as to
certain claims, and the motion to stay is granted as to claims
based upon products containing evaporated cane juice (ECJ),
pending the Food and Drug Administration's issuance of final
guidance. Upon the lifting of the partial stay, Plaintiff is
granted 21 days leave to amend the ECJ claims.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as to the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), the False Advertising Law (FAL), and the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims based upon alleged
slack fill.

Plaintiff was directed not add any new claims or parties without
prior express leave of the Court.  Any amended pleading will be
filed on or before December 12, 2014.

The case is SUSAN LEONHART, Plaintiff, v. NATURE'S PATH FOODS,
INC, Defendant, NO. 13-CV-00492-BLF, (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the
November 21, 2014 ruling is available at http://is.gd/YBi1cNfrom
Leagle.com.

Susan Leonhart, Plaintiff, represented by Colin Harvey Dunn --
chd@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates & Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates.

Nature's Path Foods, Inc, Defendant, represented by William Lewis
Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria
Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Lisa Ann
Wongchenko -- lwongchenko@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP.


NOAH MARTIN: Recalls Unpasteurized Apple Cider Due to E. coli
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 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:           Noah Martin
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The food recall warning issued on Oct. 31, 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.

Noah Martin is recalling unpasteurized apple cider from the
marketplace due to possible E. coli O157:H7 contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described.

The product has been sold at the St. Jacobs Farmers' Market
located in Waterloo, Ontario on Oct. 11, 2014.

Check to see if you have the product in your home.  If the product
is in your home, do not consume it.

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 this product.

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.


NUTRONICS LABS: Must Face False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Nov. 20 refused to toss a proposed class action
accusing Nutronics Labs Inc. of falsely extolling the myriad
health benefits of its deer antler velvet supplements even though
studies show they are only effective when injected, saying the
claims weren't time-barred or inadequately pled.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller said he wasn't persuaded by
Nutronic's arguments that plaintiff Scott Burghardt hadn't
adequately pled his claims that the company violated the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act by not telling consumers that the purported
health benefits of the IGF-1 Plus supplement -- such as that it
helps build muscle mass and increase libido -- weren't backed by
science.  The CLRA claim wasn't time-barred because the plaintiff
sought only equitable relief, not a monetary judgment, the judge
concluded.

The judge also refused to jettison a claim brought under Unfair
Competition Law because by successfully pleading his CLRA claim,
Mr. Burghardt automatically stated a claim under the UCL.

Nutronics couldn't convince Judge Miller that Mr. Burghardt had
lacked standing to file the suit because he was unlikely to
purchase the supplement in the future.

"While this argument is better addressed in context of an
evidentiary motion, courts addressing this issue reason that a
plaintiff in a false advertising case retains standing to pursue
injunctive relief as long as the products continue to be
deceptively marketed and sold by the defendant," Judge Miller
wrote.

Nutronics lost its bid to dismiss a breach of warranty claim after
Judge Miller concluded that Mr. Burghardt didn't have to notify
the company of the claim prior to filing suit because he was suing
the company as a manufacturer, not a seller, of the supplement.

And the judge rejected Nutronics' argument that the plaintiff was
required to "state with particularity the circumstances
constituting the fraud or mistake" under Rule 9(b) of the Rules of
Federal Procedure for his CLRA and UCL claims to stick.  The rule
didn't apply because the complaint was based in consumer law
fraud, not common law fraud, and therefore didn't require a
showing of fraud, Judge Miller said.

Mr. Burghardt's March complaint alleges that Nutronics has
consistently misled consumers into believing that the supplement
helps "build lean muscle mass and speed . . . their recovery
time," "boost your energy levels" and "promote sexual performance
and function by raising libido" when numerous scientific studies
have shown those claims to be false.

The complaint says that the primary active ingredient in the
supplement -- insulin-like growth factor 1 -- has only been shown
to be effective when it is injected, not spread on the tongue like
with the supplement.  Even then, its only known effects are to
increase total protein and DNA content in tissues, not provide the
"miracle benefits" advertised by Nutronics, according to the suit.

Mr. Burghardt, who purchased a bottle of the supplement for $120
from Nutronics' website in April 2013, said in the suit that he
never would he bought the supplement had he known that he wouldn't
experience any of the purported benefits. He's seeking to
represent a putative class of California consumers who purchased
the supplement.

The six forms of the supplement targeted in this suit are the
Super Max 200,000ng, Maximum 100,000ng, Ultra Plus 25,000ng, Ultra
10,000ng, Starter Plus 5,000ng and Starter 3,000ng, all available
in dropper or spray form.

Mr. Burghardt is represented by James R. Patterson of the
Patterson Law Group APC and Todd D. Carpenter --
todd@carpenterlawyers.com -- of the Carpenter Law Group.

Nutronics Labs is represented by Chris Campbell of the Law Office
of Chris Campbell LLC.

The case is Burghardt v. Nutronics Labs, Inc. et al, case number
3:14-cv-00606 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California.


NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Product Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Sapir, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Paul Averback and Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation, Case No.
2:14-cv-07331 (D.N.J., November 24, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants made materially false and misleading information and
failure to disclose material facts concerning the safety and
efficacy of the NX-1207 developed drug for the treatment of benign
prostatic hyperplasia.

Nymox Pharmaceutical Corporation is engaged in the research and
development of therapeutics and diagnostics, with an emphasis on
products for the unmet needs of the aging population.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Moukoulis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS, PC
      Suite 450, Juniper And Market Streets
      John Wanamaker Building
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 561-3600
      E-mail: tina@bernardmgross.com

         - and -

      James M. Orman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. ORMAN
      1600 Market Street, Suite 3305
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 523-7800
      Facsimile: (215) 523-9290
      E-mail: jorman@dbslawllp.com


O'KEEFE LEASHOLD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. O'Keefe Leashold Corp. d/b/a O'Keefe's Bar & Grill,
John J. Sheeran, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-06913
(E.D.N.Y., November 25, 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 O'Keefe's Bar & Grill restaurant
located at 62 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans 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


OFFICE DEPOT: "Danley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Danley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Office Depot, Inc. and Officemax North America, Inc.,
Case No. 9:14-cv-81469 (S.D. Fla., November 24, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendants own and operate over 900 OfficeMax retail locations
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan Hilary Stern, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: sstern@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com


OLIVER ADJUSTMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kubat" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Kubat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oliver Adjustment Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-
09091 (C.D. Cal., November 25, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's attempts to unlawfully and abusively collect an debt
allegedly owed by the Plaintiff.

Oliver Adjustment Company, Inc. is in the business of collecting
consumer debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


PINGTAN MARINE: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Warriner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, Roy Yu,
Jin Shi, and Xuesong Song, Case No. 2:14-cv-09049 (C.D. Cal.,
November 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made  materially
false and misleading financial statements, specifically by failure
to properly report related party transactions.

Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is an ocean fishing business that
owns or operates vessels in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone and
the Arafura Sea of Indonesia.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Pingtan
Marine Enterprise Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


PRIME HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Rules on Appeals in "Willis" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, entered an
order on appeals filed in the labor class action complaint
initiated by Maucabrina Willis against Prime Healthcare Services,
Inc., holding that:

-- the trial court's December 16, 2013 order denying Prime
    Healthcare's petition to compel arbitration and strike class
    claims is reversed; and

-- the trial court's December 16, 2013 order denying Willis'
    sanctions motion is affirmed.

The action is MAUCABRINA WILLIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PRIME
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No.
B253712.  Under the complaint, Plaintiff alleged violations of
Labor Code for failure to pay minimum wages and wages owed upon
termination.

Ms. Willis was a non-exempt clerk at Centinela Hospital Medical
Center before being terminated by defendant on December 11, 2011.

Defendant is the parent company of Prime Healthcare Centinela,
LLC, which purchased the hospital from Centinela Freeman Health
System.

The Appellate Court's Nov. 14, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/8Rzc6afrom Leagle.com.

Karasik Law Firm and Gregory N. Karasik -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com
-- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Richard J. Simmons --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com , Daniel J. McQueen --
dmqueen@sheppardmullin.com and Robert Mussig --
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com for Defendant and Appellant.


RANCHERS LEGACY: Recalls 1,200 Lbs. of Ground Beef Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ranchers Legacy Meat Co., of Vadnais Heights, Minn., is recalling
1,200 pounds of ground beef products that may be contaminated with
E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

Products subject to the recall are packaged in plastic cryovac
sealed packets, and contain various weights of ground beef.  All
products produced on Nov. 19, 2014 are subject to recall.

All of these have a Package Code (use by) 12/10/2014 and bear the
establishment number "Est. 40264" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.  Individual products include:

Ranchers Legacy Ground Beef Patties 77/23
Ranchers Legacy Ground Chuck Patties 80/20
Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice Ground Beef 80/20
Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice WD Beef Patties 80/20
Ranchers Legacy RD Beef Patties 80/20
OTG Manufacturing Chuck/Brisket RD Patties
Ranchers Legacy Chuck Blend Oval Beef Patties
Ranchers Legacy WD Chuck Blend Patties
Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice NAT Beef Patties 80/20
Ranchers Legacy NAT Beef Patties 80/20
Ranchers Legacy USDA Choice NAT Beef Patties 80/20
Ranchers Legacy Ground Chuck Blend
Ranchers Legacy Chuck Blend Bulk Pack NAT Patties
Ranchers Legacy Chuck Blend NAT Beef Patties

The product was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
routine inspection.  Products testing positive on Nov. 21, 2014,
were held at the establishment.  The products being recalled were
produced on the same day and equipment as the positive product.
Products were shipped to distributors for sales nationwide.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure the organism.  While most people
recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).  This condition can occur
among persons of any age but is most common in children under 5-
years old and older adults.  It is marked by easy bruising,
pallor, and decreased urine output.  Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.  FSIS and the company have received no
reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these
products.

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

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160F.  The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers and media with questions regarding the recall should
call Jeremy Turnquist, Vice President of Operations for Ranchers
Legacy Meat Co. at (651) 366-6575.


REXALL SUNDOWN: Judge Rejects Glucosamine Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that class
action objector Theodore Frank is now up to $271 million.  That's
the sum total of plaintiffs lawyer fees that he says he's
persuaded courts to wipe out after he or his group, the Center for
Class Action Fairness, sounded the alarm about a class settlement.

Mr. Frank's latest victory came when Judge Richard Posner of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a
nationwide settlement on behalf of people who bought certain
glucosamine supplements, finding the deal to be thoroughly
deficient.  Most of the relief -- valued by the lower court at
$20.2 million -- didn't actually benefit the class, and the
plaintiffs lawyers' $2 million fee wasn't justified by such
"meager benefits," the judge found.

"The settlement, a selfish deal between class counsel and the
defendant, disserves the class," Judge Posner wrote in the Nov. 19
ruling, in which he remanded the case back to the trial court.
Frank, who said he bought a couple bottles of glucosamine at his
doctor's recommendation, lodged his objection to the settlement as
a class member.  "This is the best opinion out there on these
[class action settlement] issues," he said.  "I think it will have
a dramatic effect on class action settlements negotiated."
The plaintiffs sued manufacturer Rexall Sundown and retailer
Target Corp. for allegedly violating consumer protection laws by
making or selling a product that didn't produce the miracle relief
advertised for joint discomfort and arthritis. Eight months later,
the parties reached a settlement.  In addition to cash for
consumers, the settlement included labeling changes and a cy press
award to an arthritis research group.

U.S. District Judge James Zagel in Chicago approved a modified
settlement and valued it at $20.2 million, which included $14.2
million potentially available to pay claims.  But only $865,284
was actually designated for 30,245 consumers who went to the
trouble of submitting claims.  Almost twice that amount, $1.5
million, was spent on class notices.  The plaintiffs lawyers asked
for $4.5 million in fees, but Zagel sliced that to $1.93 million,
plus roughly $180,000 for expenses.

Judge Posner wrote that the $20.2 million figure has "barely any
connection to the settlement's value to the class."  He noted that
it wasn't surprising that so few people filed claims, given the
"needlessly elaborate documentation" required, and the notice's
threats of criminal prosecution for filing false claims. (Judge
Posner was joined by Judges Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton.)
Posner suggested that the plaintiffs lawyers' fee shouldn't exceed
a third or at most half of the total amount going to class and
counsel. Under this settlement, the upper limit for a fee would be
no more than $865,284, which is "absurdly far" from the $4.5
million that the lawyers asked for, Posner stated.

Mr. Frank compared the underlying settlement to an issue-spotting
exam of everything that could be wrong with a class action
settlement. "I can't imagine writing a brief where I don't cite
[this case]," he said.

The Center on Class Action Fairness has made 63 objections in 56
cases to date, according to Mr. Frank. (The group might object
more than once in a case if it doesn't like a revised settlement.)
Settlements were rejected, withdrawn or improved in 39 cases; 12
objections were denied and 18 cases are pending, according to his
data.  The ruling was Mr. Frank's second victory in the Seventh
Circuit this fall: In September, Posner sided with CCAF when the
court voided a class action settlement involving RadioShack.
Chicago plaintiffs lawyer Stewart Weltman, who represents the
settlement class, declined to comment on the content of the
ruling.  "We're basically taking the position that we will
litigate the case now," he said.

The defendants are represented by Sidley Austin partner Robert
Hochman -- rhochman@sidley.com


RITE AID: Superior Court Decision in "Landay" Case Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. LANDAY AND PATBERG CARMODY & GING, Appellees, v. RITE AID
OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., Appellant, NO. 20 WAP 2013 is a
discretionary appeal, wherein the the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, Western District considers whether the Medical
Records Act (MRA or the Act), 42 Pa.C.S.A. Sections 6151-6160,
applies to the reproduction of records by pharmacies, and, if so,
whether, and under what circumstances, pharmacies may charge
customers a flat fee for the reproduction of records.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Act does not apply to
pharmacies, and, as a result, it need not address the flat fee
issue. In light of its conclusions, the Supreme Court reverses the
decision of the Superior Court.

A copy of the November 24, 2014 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/fyPVgKfrom Leagle.com.


SADAR AND ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Wood" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Wood, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Sadar and Associates, Inc. d/b/a The Sadar Group
and Joanne Sadar, Case No. 1:14-cv-02589 (N.D. Ohio, November 24,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an accounting firm is located at
8302 Yellowbrick Road, Mentor Ohio, 44060.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Biller. Esq
      THE LAW FIRM OF ANDREW BILLER
      Easton Town Center-Ste. 200
      4200 Regent Street
      Columbus, OH 43219
      Telephone: (614) 939-9022
      Facsimile: (614) 583-8107
      E-mail: andrewbilleresq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Scott J. Robinson, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER, SMELTZ, RANNEY & LAFOND PLL
      1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 1000
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 696-4200
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7303
      E-mail: srobinson@ssrl.com


SAPAR USA: Recalls 14 Lbs. of Sausage Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sapar USA, Inc. (DBA Fabrique Delices), a Hayward, Calif.
establishment is recalling approximately 14 pounds of sausage
products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain nonfat dry milk, a
known allergen which was not declared on the label.

The products subject to recall are:

Pieces of "Fabrique Delices, Saucisson A L'ail Garlic Sausage -
Nonfat Dry Milk Added," each approximately .83-lb each, with
product code 5511.  The misbranded products bear the label of
another product, "Fabrique Delices, Saucisson Sec"

The product, produced on Nov. 6, 2014, bears the establishment
number "EST 6206" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The
products were sold through distribution centers in California,
Pennsylvania and Texas to institutional and retail outlets.

The problem was discovered by one of the firm's sales
representatives who was providing samples of the product at a food
show and noted the error.

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.  When available,
the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website
at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

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 with questions about the recall should contact Antonio
Pinheiro at (510) 441-9500.  Media with questions should contact
Sebastien Espinasse at (510) 441-9500.


SPX CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Retirement Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Di Biase et al., v. SPX Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00656
(W.D.N.C., November 25, 2014), arises out of the alleged breach of
promises made in collective bargaining agreements between the
International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers Of America and SPX Corporation, specifically by
failing to provide certain retired employees, spouses and
dependents their lifetime post-retirement health care benefits.

SPX Corporation is a global manufacturing and industrial equipment
supplier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Fayette, Esq.
      PINSKY, SMITH, FAYETTE & KENNEDY, LLP
      146 Monroe Center, NW, Suite 805
      Grand Rapids, MI 49503
      Telephone: (616) 451-8496
      E-mail: mlfayette@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

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


SUGAR ROCK: W.Va. Court Issues Opinion on Mining Partnership
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia answered a question
posed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which
intertwines issues about partnership interests in oil and gas
wells, the Statute of Frauds, the common law "mining partnership,"
and the West Virginia Revised Uniform Partnership Act.

In a Nov. 14, 2014 Opinion delivered by Justice Ketchum available
at http://is.gd/UBI4m8from Leagle.com, the Supreme Court
"conclude that the Statute of Frauds requires the partners of a
mining partnership to show their membership through a deed, will,
or other written conveyance establishing they are co-owners of the
mineral interest being mined. However, because the real property
of a general partnership belongs to the partnership entity and not
the individual partners, no such writing is required to establish
a partnership interest in a general partnership."

The Opinion was issued in connection with the case CLIFTON G.
VALENTINE, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner, v. SUGAR ROCK, INC.,
GERALD D. HALL, and TERESA D. HALL, Defendants Below, Respondents,
Case No. 14-0246.

The case involves oil and gas wells owned and operated by four
partnerships. The partnerships also own real property: mineral
interests in the form of leases to extract oil and gas from real
estate. The plaintiff contends that he is a partner of each of
these partnerships. The partners themselves do not own any part of
the mineral interests. Nevertheless, another partner contends that
the plaintiff should be excluded from the partnerships because he
cannot produce a written instrument that meets with the Statute of
Frauds showing he is a partner in the real-estate-owning
partnerships.

James S. Huggins, Esq. & Daniel P. Corcoran, Esq. --
corcoran@theisenbrock.com -- of Theisen Brock LPA, Marietta, Ohio,
Counsel for the Petitioner.

W. Henry Lawrence, Esq., William J. O'Brien, Esq., Amy Marie
Smith, Esq., Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia,
Counsel for the Respondents.


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Commiciotto" Suit Over Faulty Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Commiciotto, Linda Commiciotto, Elena E. Obis, and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09065 (C.D. Cal., November 24, 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:

      Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
      Christopher Lavorato, Esq.
      Alexandra A. Hamilton, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com
              clavorato@cpmlegal.com
              ahamilton@cpmlegal.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Fuentes" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryvania Mercedes Fuentes, Lidice C. Santos, and Steven P.
Schneider, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-24494
(S.D. Fla., November 25, 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:

      Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
      ROBERT C. GILBERT, P.A.
      2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 442-8666
      E-mail: rcg@grossmanroth.com

         -and-

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      Kevin B. Love, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 Southwest 57th Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9000
      Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
      E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
              klove@cridenlove.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Nam" Suit Over Defective Airbags
----------------------------------------------------
Julie Mi Ok Nam, Alex M. Oh, Patrick Bryans and Lisa Marie Duke,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09127 (C.D. Cal.,
November 25, 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:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              dcw@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com

          - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      Paul M. Yi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885


TAKATA CORP: Faces Wrongful Death Suit Over Air Bag Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the first known lawsuit in federal court over a death linked
to Takata Corp.'s recalls has been filed by the brother of a South
Carolina woman who died after her air bag deployed during an
automobile accident in 2008.

Mary Lynn Wolfe, 57, was driving her 2002 Honda Accord in
Orangeburg, S.C., when she veered off the roadway, hitting a
mailbox and a tree, according to the suit, filed on Nov. 21 in the
U.S. District Court for South Carolina.  She died 18 days later at
a hospital after suffering respiratory failure, liver problems,
brain injuries and spinal fractures.  The air bag deployed with
"excessive force," the lawsuit alleges.

The suit was filed one day after Takata's senior vice president
for global quality assurance, Hiroshi Shimizu, appeared for the
first time on Capitol Hill. U.S. Senators pressured Takata to
conduct an independent investigation into the defect.  A federal
grand jury in New York is investigating the defect.

Kevin Dean -- kdean@motleyrice.com -- a member of Mount Pleasant,
S.C.-based Motley Rice, who represents the plaintiff Robert Lyon
Jr., said the air bag caused his sister's spinal injuries.

"During one of those frontal impacts the force of the air bag
caused spinal fractures," he said.

The suit names Takata and its U.S. subsidiaries, including TK
Holdings Inc. as well as Honda Motor Co. Ltd. and its U.S.
subsidiaries.  Alby Berman, a spokeswoman for TK Holdings Inc.,
based in Auburn Hills, Mich., declined to comment.  Chris Martin,
a spokesman for Honda North America Inc. in Torrance, Calif.,
declined to comment.  "Honda has not yet had an opportunity to
review this Complaint or evaluate the vehicle or airbag components
at issue," he wrote in an email to The NLJ.

Honda and nine other auto companies have recalled 7.8 million U.S.
cars and trucks worldwide over a defect that could cause Takata
air bags to explode, pelting drivers with metal shrapnel.  This
month, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
demanded that the recalls, which have been limited to hot and
humid climates, be expanded to vehicles nationwide.

More than 30 lawsuits have been filed against Takata and several
of the auto companies, including Honda.  Most of the lawsuits are
class actions brought on behalf of consumers, alleging that Takata
and Honda knew of the defect as early as 2001, but at least two
have been filed in federal court by injured drivers.

Plaintiffs lawyers have estimated that at least five people
worldwide have died due to the defect.

The family of one of those victims, Hien Tran, filed a wrongful-
death action in state court in Florida on Nov. 17 against Takata
and Honda.  Ms. Tran died on Oct. 2 three days after her 2001
Honda Accord hit another car and her air bag exploded.  Her death
was originally investigated as a homicide due to the shrapnel
wounds she suffered.

Ms. Wolfe would be the sixth death.

Mr. Dean, who is pinpointing cause of the problem to the use of
ammonium nitrite, the chemical used to make the air bag inflate,
said his case did not involve metal shards.

"It's the propellant that is the problem here, with the explosive
nature of these air bags," he said.  "The air bag will have much
greater force and smack somebody in the face.  The way I look at
it is like dynamite in your air bag, and you didn't know it."


TAKATA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Air Bag Defect Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Nov. 21 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Takata Corporation, TJ Holdings,
Highland Industries and Honda Motor Company resulting from the
recall of vehicles because of allegedly defective airbags
manufactured by Takata.

If you would like to join the class action, please call Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan toll-free at 866-767-3653; you may also email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

According to the lawsuit, Takata and Honda were aware of the
defects in Takata-manufactured airbags but concealed them from
consumers.  The lawsuit claims that the airbags have caused
numerous injuries and fatalities.  The National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration estimates that approximately
7.8 million vehicles are potentially affected by Takata-
manufactured airbags.  In addition to Honda, the Takata-
manufactured airbags have been reportedly installed in vehicles
manufactured by Toyota, Mazda, BMW, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru,
Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.  A list of the recalled
vehicles may be found here: http://www.rosenlegal.com/newsroom-
77.html

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Rosen Law Firm concentrates its practice on complex class
action litigation on behalf of clients around the globe.


TAKATA CORP: Senators Demand Airbag Defect Internal Documents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida and Jay Rockefeller IV of
West Virginia have demanded numerous internal documents from
Takata Corp. about its deadly air bag safety defect, saying a top
executive at the Japanese manufacturer left them with "many
significant questions" about the problem.

In a letter sent on Nov. 24 to Takata CEO Shigehisa Takada, the
senators made 24 different requests for company papers and
information on the problem to bring clarity that they said didn't
come from Hiroshi Shimizu, the manufacturer's senior vice
president for global quality assurance.  At least five deaths have
been tied to the defect, which prompted recalls of about 7.8
million U.S. cars and trucks in the hot and humid climates of many
southern states.

Mr. Shimizu on Nov. 20 testified before Nelson and other members
of the Senate Commerce Committee that his company is "deeply sorry
about each of the reported instances in which a Takata air bag has
not performed as designed and a driver or passenger has suffered
personal injuries or death."  He failed to put lawmakers at ease
about Takata's handling of the problem, however.  At one point,
Shimizu declined to say whether Takata supports a nationwide
recall, claiming it was "hard for me to answer 'yes' or 'no.'"

Senators Nelson and Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate
Commerce Committee, asked Takata to give them "all documents that
refer to mistakes, errors or omissions made in the production of
any Takata inflator," "all documents that refer or relate to
concerns or allegations . . . by a Takata employee or contract
that any Takata inflator was defective or improperly
manufactured," and the names and titles of all employees who
investigated the defect or made decisions concerning it.

Takata also should identify each lawsuit in which the company is a
defendant and faces a claim that its air bag caused an injury or
death as early as 2000, the senators asked in their list of
requests.  The manufacturer is a defendant in more than 30
lawsuits, mostly class actions brought on behalf of consumers.

"Unfortunately, Mr. Shimizu was unable to satisfactorily answer
many of the questions posed to him by Senator Nelson and other
members of the Commerce Committee," Senators Nelson and
Rockefeller wrote in their letter, which asked for a response by
Dec. 12.

A Takata representative wasn't immediately available to comment.
Lawmakers next month will get another opportunity to question
Mr. Shimizu in person.  A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee
on Dec. 3 will hear testimony from him, as well as representatives
of Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Toyota Motor Corp. and Bayerische Motoren
Werke (BMW) AG, which use Takata air bags in their vehicles.


THOR MOTOR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           8
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014493
TC ID number:             2014493
Manufacturer recall
number:                   RC000095

On certain motorhomes outfitted with Carefree awnings, the
mounting bracket that secures the awning to the motorhome can
crack and break apart.  If the mounting bracket were to break
apart, the awning can collapse, which could strike another
vehicle, a stationary object, or a bystander, causing injury
and/or property damage.

Correction: Dealers will remove and replace the mounting brackets.
Affected products

Maker and models affected:

   Maker                Model               Model year(s) affected
   -----                -----               ----------------------
   THOR MOTOR COACH     FOUR WINDS SIESTA   2015, 2015
   THOR MOTOR COACH     CHATEAU             2015
   THOR MOTOR COACH     CHATEAU CITATION    2015
   THOR MOTOR COACH     FREEDOM ELITE       2015
   THOR MOTOR COACH     HURRICANE           2015
   THOR MOTOR COACH     WINDSPORT           2015
   THOR MOTOR COACH     MIRAMAR             2015


TRIUMPH: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
----------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Engine
Units affected:           41
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2014495
TC ID number:             2014495

Certain motorcycles may experience an unintended activation of one
of the fuel injectors by the engine control unit (ECU).  This
could result in the engine either not starting, or if already
running normally, may lose ignition to one cylinder (caused by
excessive fuelling), which would lead to a loss of vehicle
propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions,
and the rider's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Correction: Dealers will replace the ECU.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model                   Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----                   ----------------------
   TRIUMPH    SPEEDMASTER             2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    THRUXTON                2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    BONNEVILLE T100         2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    BONNEVILLE              2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    THUNDERBIRD             2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    TIGER 800               2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    THUNDERBIRD STORM       2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    TIGER 800XC             2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    AMERICA                 2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    SCRAMBLER               2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    ROCKET III TOURING      2014, 2015
   TRIUMPH    ROCKET III ROADSTER     2014, 2015


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul Kadir Mohamed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC,
Hirease, LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No. 3:14-cv-05200 (N.D. Cal.,
November 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides a
smartphone application that connects drivers with people who need
a ride.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      Bradley K. King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
      1016 Palm Ave.
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
              bking@ahdootwolfson.com

                           *     *    *

Lalita Clozel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
after being blasted over safety issues, car-sharing company Uber
Technologies Inc. revised its policy on employee background checks
earlier this year.  Now, it is facing a class action from a former
driver claiming its procedures violate the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

In his complaint, filed on Nov. 24 in California Northern District
Court, Abdul Kadir Mohamed alleges that Uber declined to employ
him after running his profile through a consumer credit report.
Mr. Mohamed asserts that Uber did not notify him about the report
and failed to give him an opportunity to respond before rejecting
his candidacy.  He alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act and California and Massachusetts consumer credit reporting
protection laws.  Mr. Mohamed is asking for punitive damages
between $100 and $5,000 for each violation.

Before these events, Mr. Mohamed had been a driver for Uber's more
upscale service Uber Black.  But when he decided to switch over to
UberX, a service that requires drivers to use their own vehicles,
he was urged to buy a new car that cost him $25,000, according to
the complaint.

After he had already begun taking rides for UberX, he claims, Uber
verified his consumer credit report through the firm Hirease --
another defendant in the case -- and found he had "a minor
criminal record that, in fact, stems from his seven children
receiving much-needed Medicaid benefits."  Mr. Mohamed said he
received an email in the middle of night notifying him he had been
rejected for the job, and was at once ejected from the Smartphone
application.


UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in "Garcia" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied a motion to dismiss
the case captioned MARCO ANTONIO ALFARO GARCIA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. JEH JOHNSON, ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-
01775-YGR, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of processes employed by the
Asylum Division of the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS). The gravamen of the complaint alleges a failure
to conduct in a timely manner "reasonable fear" determinations
under 8 C.F.R. section 208.31(b).  Plaintiffs contend that USCIS
is required to complete such determinations within 10 days of
referral to an asylum officer, but that the government has
essentially abdicated its duty to comply with this mandate. As a
result, plaintiffs allege that individuals are held for months in
detention while they await hearings on their claims. Plaintiffs
seek declaratory and mandamus relief on two causes of action: (1)
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
sections 555(b) (requiring agency action in a "reasonable time")
and 706(1) (providing that a reviewing court shall . . . "compel
agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed"); and
(2) violation of Section 208.31, which requires that the USCIS
complete these reasonable fear determinations within 10 days of
referral to an asylum officer.

Judge Rogers granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified a nationwide class of all individuals
who:

(1) are or will be subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section
1231(a)(5) or 8 U.S.C. Section 1228(b);

(2) who have expressed, or in the future express, a fear of
returning to their country of removal; and

(3) who have not received, or do not receive, a reasonable fear
determination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 208.31 within ten days
of referral to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The defined class does not include individuals who have received
their reasonable fear determinations.

A copy of the Court's November 21, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/nrllGifrom Leagle.com

Marco Antonio Alfaro Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ahilan
Thevanesan Arulanantham -- aarulanantham@aclusocal.org -- ACLU of
Southern California, Carmen Gloria Iguina, ACLU of Southern
California, James August Rolfes -- jrolfes@reedsmith.com -- Reed
Smith LLP, Claudia Valenzuela, National Immigrant Justice Center,
Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of
Northern California, Inc., Michael Bryan Kaufman --
mkaufman@aclusocal.org -- ACLU of Southern California, Timothy
Robert Carraher -- tcarraher@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP &
John Douglas Pingel -- jpingel@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

Credy Madrid Calderon, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ahilan Thevanesan
Arulanantham, ACLU of Southern California, Carmen Gloria Iguina,
ACLU of Southern California, James August Rolfes, Reed Smith LLP,
Claudia Valenzuela, National Immigrant Justice Center, Julia
Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California, Inc., Michael Bryan Kaufman, ACLU of Southern
California, Timothy Robert Carraher, REED SMITH LLP & John Douglas
Pingel, Reed Smith LLP.

Claudia Rodriguez De La Torre, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ahilan
Thevanesan Arulanantham, ACLU of Southern California, Carmen
Gloria Iguina, ACLU of Southern California, James August Rolfes,
Reed Smith LLP, Claudia Valenzuela, National Immigrant Justice
Center, Julia Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of
Northern California, Inc., Michael Bryan Kaufman, ACLU of Southern
California, Timothy Robert Carraher, REED SMITH LLP & John Douglas
Pingel, Reed Smith LLP.

Gustavo Ortega, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ahilan Thevanesan
Arulanantham, ACLU of Southern California, Carmen Gloria Iguina,
ACLU of Southern California, James August Rolfes, Reed Smith LLP,
Claudia Valenzuela, National Immigrant Justice Center, Julia
Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California, Inc., Michael Bryan Kaufman, ACLU of Southern
California, Timothy Robert Carraher, REED SMITH LLP & John Douglas
Pingel, Reed Smith LLP.

Nancy Bardalez Serpa, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ahilan Thevanesan
Arulanantham, ACLU of Southern California, Carmen Gloria Iguina,
ACLU of Southern California, James August Rolfes, Reed Smith LLP,
Claudia Valenzuela, National Immigrant Justice Center, Julia
Harumi Mass, Esq., American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California, Inc., Michael Bryan Kaufman, ACLU of Southern
California, Timothy Robert Carraher, REED SMITH LLP & John Douglas
Pingel, Reed Smith LLP.

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendant,
represented by Elizabeth J. Stevens -- elizabeth.stevens@usdoj.gov
-- Office of Immigration Litigation, Rebekah Antoin Nahas & Victor
M. Mercado-Santana -- victor.m.mercado-santana@usdoj.gov -- US
DOJ.

Lori Scialabba, Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth J.
Stevens, Office of Immigration Litigation, Rebekah Antoin Nahas &
Victor M. Mercado-Santana, US DOJ.

Joseph Langlois, Associate Director of Refugee, Asylum and
International Operations, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth J.
Stevens, Office of Immigration Litigation, Rebekah Antoin Nahas &
Victor M. Mercado-Santana, US DOJ.


USA MART: "Ayala" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Ayala And Salvador Hernandez-Salazar, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. USA Mart Incorporated
d/b/a 990 Mart, RB Mart Incorporated d/b/a Dollars Mart, U Mart
Incorporated d/b/a 990 Mart, Big Mart Inc. d/b/a 990 More or
Less,Mega Dollar Mart Inc. d/b/a Mega Dollar, Ali Faisalari, and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-09368 (S.D.N.Y., November 25,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a number of dollar stores
throughout New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      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: info@jcpclaw.com


VENTANA MEDICAL: Recalls AFB III Staining Kit
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Posting date:             November 20, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42167

A staining artefact has been observed on stained slides that may
interfere with the interpretation and identification of acid-fast
bacteria (AFB), which is the indication for this assay.  This
artefact can be described as circular, non-specific purplish-color
slide background, and the color can vary from blue to pink to
purple.  The staining artefact has the potential for obstructing
visualization of acid-fast bacteria, therefore leading to the
potential for false positive or negative results.

Affected products
AFB III Staining Kit

Lot or serial number:
D05755
D08323
D11015
E01024
E03378

Model or catalog number:
860-027

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Ventana Medical Systems Inc.
                    1910 E Innovation Park Drive,
                    Tucson 85755
                    Arizona
                    United States


VISA U.S.A.: Calif. Appeals Court Modifies Ruling in Tying Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three
issued an order on November 24, 2014, modifying its opinion dated
October 30, 2014, in the case captioned CREDIT/DEBIT CARD TYING
CASES. RICHARD JOHNS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. VISA
U.S.A., INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents; JAMES ATTRIDGE et
al., Objectors and Appellants, NO. A138984.

The opinion is modified as follows:

1. On page 1, second sentence of the first full paragraph, the
word "Richard" is changed to "James" so the sentence reads:

Objectors' first appeal (the First Appeal) arose from an order
approving a settlement agreement (the First Settlement) that
effectively, albeit not expressly, released the claims asserted
in a separate pending lawsuit filed by one of the Objectors,
James Attridge (the Attridge claims).

2. On page 4, third sentence of the first full paragraph, the
extra word "that" is deleted so the sentence reads:

The complaint in the Attridge action alleged that the exclusion
policies permitted Visa and MasterCard to charge higher network
service fees than would have been possible in a fully competitive
environment, and that these fees were passed on to those holders
of Visa and MasterCard credit cards who maintained revolving debt
balances in the form of higher fees and finance charges.

There is no change in the judgment. The petition for rehearing and
request for judicial notice filed by appellant James Attridge are
denied, as is the petition for rehearing filed by appellant and

A copy of the modified opinion is available at http://is.gd/Yu4mzx
from Leagle.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y. Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Nov. 21 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Vivint Solar, Inc. common stock between the October 1, 2014 date
of Vivint's initial public offering ("IPO") and November 10, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 21, 2014.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or
619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/vivint/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Vivint, certain of its officers and
directors, its controlling shareholder and the underwriters of its
IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  Vivint is a
residential solar energy unit installer that leases solar energy
systems to residential homeowners pursuant to long-term power
purchase agreements and leases.

On or about September 30, 2014, Vivint and the underwriters priced
the IPO, and on October 1, 2014 filed the final Prospectus, which
forms part of the Registration Statement for the IPO
(collectively, the "Registration Statement"), with the SEC.  The
IPO was successful for the Company and the underwriters, with
Vivint issuing and selling 20.6 million new shares of Vivint
common stock to the public at $16 per share, raising approximately
$329.6 million in gross proceeds.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading.  According
to the complaint, under the rules and regulations governing the
preparation of the Registration Statement, Vivint was required to
disclose at the time of the IPO that ownership trends in the
residential solar industry had changed from long-term leasing to
financing, that demand for long-term leases had declined, and that
growth in the Company's operating expenses in the third quarter of
2014 had significantly outstripped growth in revenue, resulting in
much weaker sales trends and significantly larger net losses than
the market had been led to expect.  The Registration Statement
contained no such disclosures.  Vivint common stock currently
trades at below $11 per share, a more than 32% decline from the
IPO price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Vivint common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connect with Vivint's October 1, 2014 IPO.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller, --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.


VIZIO INC: Faces "Larsen" for Falsifying LED TV Refresh Rate
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Larsen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vizio Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01865 (C.D. Cal.,
November 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendant has systematically
misrepresented the refresh rate of certain of its LCD televisions,
specifically by overstating, falsifying and obfuscating their
actual refresh rates to improve sales.

Refresh rate refers to the number of times per second a unique
image is displayed on a television screen. The advertised refresh
rates of modern televisions are an important differentiator among
competing televisions and are, likewise, a key component of
pricing, just like resolution and screen size.

Vizio Inc. a sales and marketing company whose goal is to sell as
many Vizio-branded products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John H. Gomez, Esq.
      John P. Fiske, Esq.
      GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      655 West Broadway Suite1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 237-3490
      Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
      E-mail: john@thegomezfirm.com
              jfiske@thegomezfirm.com

         - and -

      William Anderson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew Schelkopf, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: mds@chimicles.com


WESTERN TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Western Transportation, Inc., Case No. 7:14-
cv-00128 (N.D. Tex., November 24, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Western Transportation, Inc. provides fuel services to the oil
field industry in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico and
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Richard Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel Blvd, Ste 100
      Southlake, TX 76092
      Telephone: (817) 416-5060
      Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


WHITE & BLUE: Sued in W.D. Mo. Over Contaminated Tattoo Needles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Murray and Jack Bradley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. White & Blue Lion, Inc., Case No.
6:14-cv-03500 (W.D. Mo., November 25, 2014), arises out of the
recall of the Defendant's branded tattoo inks and needles due to
confirmed bacterial contamination in unopened bottles of inks and
needles.

White & Blue Lion, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig R. Heidemann, Esq.
      Nathan A. Duncan, Esq.
      DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C.
      111 West Broadway, P.O. Box 117
      Bolivar, MO 65613
      Telephone: (417) 326-5261
      Facsimile: (417) 326-2845
      E-mail: cheidemann@bolivarlaw.com
              nduncan@bolivarlaw.com


YAHOO INC: 3rd Cir. Panel Takes TCPA Class Action Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, Aaron Vehling and Gavin Broady, writing for Law360,
report that a federal judge wrongly dismissed a putative class
action against Yahoo Inc. after concluding that unsolicited text
messages sent to a Philadelphia man could not be counted as a
computerized, unsolicited phone call under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, a Third Circuit panel heard during oral arguments
on Nov. 21.

James Francis -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- an attorney with
Francis & Mailman PC representing plaintiff Bill Dominguez, said
that the approximately 27,000 text messages his client received
from a Yahoo email forwarding service were precisely what Congress
intended to forbid when it passed the TCPA.

"This system is exactly the type of thing that Congress meant to
regulate: an automated, harassing system that can't be stopped,"
he said.  "This is precisely the type of automated harassment that
was meant to be covered."

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson granted summary judgment in
favor of Yahoo in March after agreeing there was no evidence that
the opt-in text service could be counted as the kind of automatic
telephone dialing system, or ATDS, prohibited under the law.

Mr. Dominguez filed suit in April 2013 after he purchased a new
cellphone, with a recycled phone number, and began receiving texts
from Yahoo alerting him that he had new email messages despite his
not having a Yahoo email account.

The complaint said that the previous owner of the phone number had
signed up for a Yahoo service that allowed users to receive new
email alerts on their cell phones.  According to the company,
Yahoo discontinued the service for new users in 2011 when
smartphones with email applications became more ubiquitous.

In axing the complaint, Judge Baylson ruled that Mr. Dominguez had
failed to show that Yahoo's system "had the capacity to randomly
or sequentially generate telephone numbers" -- as required to
bring a claim under the law.

Mr. Francis, however, argued that the law did not require phone
numbers to be generated from scratch in order for plaintiffs to
advance claims.

"The question is, in terms of 'generate,' does the system have to
generate the number out of thin air? And the answer is no," he
said.  "All of the technology today that sends texts uses numbers
that come from either a list or come from some other source,
they're not creating numbers out of thin air."

He pointed to decisions out of the Federal Communications
Commission which he said showed that the government's definition
of ATDS included systems that simply had the capacity to store and
dial numbers without human intervention.

Ian Ballon -- Ballon@gtlaw.com -- an attorney with Greenberg
Traurig LLP representing Yahoo, argued that it would significantly
expand the scope of the law if the Third Circuit were to adopt Mr.
Dominguez's position in the case.

"It is undisputed that the Yahoo system cannot generate numbers at
all, so the only way the plaintiffs can win and have this case
reversed is if this court is inclined to expand the statute," he
said.

The panel said it would take the matter under advisement.

Mr. Dominguez is represented by James Francis of Francis & Mailman
PC.

Yahoo is represented by Ian Ballon of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

The case is Bill Dominguez v. Yahoo Inc., case number 14-1751,
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


Z-ULTIMATE SELF: Sanctioned for Evidence Tampering in Geiger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Order for Spoliation Sanctions in the class action complaint
GEIGER v. Z-ULTIMATE SELF DEFENSE STUDIOS, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-CV-00240-REB-BNB (D. Colo.)  The sanction awarded, however, is
limited to the plaintiffs' reasonable expenses, including
attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with the despoiled
discovery.

The action alleges claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), where Plaintiffs assert that they weren't paid minimum
wage and were fraudulently classified as independent contracts
rather than employees.

The sanctions Plaintiffs sought were for the alleged spoilage of
evidence they requested in the form of monthly profit and loss
statements from Z-Ultimate entities from 2010 to the present.

In a Nov 12, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/rcfUJJfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Boland said: "It cannot reasonably be disputed,
and I find, that the defendants destroyed evidence by altering the
profit and loss statements to eliminate certain detailed cost
entries and to eliminate altogether the investor realized profits
entries."

"In summary, I find that the defendants have improperly and in bad
faith destroyed and altered evidence, but the resulting prejudice
to the plaintiffs is slight because either the information is
available elsewhere or the probative value of the evidence is not
great," the judge held.

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of
Unemployment Insurance, Movant, represented by Emmy A. Langley --
emmy.langley@state.co.us -- Colorado Attorney General's Office.

Zach Geiger, Plaintiff, represented by:

          Christopher Barr Davlin
          Davlin Law Firm, P.C.
          2329 W. Main Street, Suite 209
          Littleton, CO 80120
          kdavlin@davlinlawfirm.com
          Tel: 720-980-9262

             -- and --

          Coren Ray Hinkle
          Todd Allen Wells
          Gleason Wells, PC
          1615 California Street, Suite 616
          Denver, CO 80202
          Tel No: 1-303-842-0831
          Fax No: 1-303-296-2246

The Z-Ultimate entities and the Individual Defendants are
represented by:

          Thomas Edward Francis
          Law Offices of Thomas E. Francis, P.C.
          695 Town Center Dr Ste 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Office: 714-384-6554

            -- and --

          John Patrick Glenn
          The Law Firm of John Glenn, P.C.
          155 East Boardwalk Drive
          Suite 400
          Fort Collins, CO 80525
          Office: 970-232-3323


ZIMMER PSI: Recalls Knee-Nexgen PRI Jigs & Offset Tibia Rotation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 3, 2014
Posting date:             November 18, 2014
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-42105

Recalled Products: Zimmer PSI Knee-Nexgen PRI Jigs & Offset Tibia
Rotation Right

The affected PSI guides would incorrectly align the ensuing
implant instrumentation and implant components corresponding to
the incorrect reconstruction of the patient's knee alignment axes.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Zimmer CAS,
                    75 Queen Street, Suite 3300
                    Montreal
                    H3C 2N6
                    Quebec
                    Canada


* Long Beach Homeowners to Sue Insurers Over Sandy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ryan, writing for Newsday, reports that lawyers representing
homeowners in Long Beach filed a federal class-action lawsuit on
Nov. 21 accusing an insurance company of conspiring with engineers
and adjustors in a widespread effort to improperly deny superstorm
Sandy claims.

The suit alleges that the private companies, which worked for the
government-run National Flood Insurance Program, falsified reports
to claim houses were damaged.


                        Asbestos Litigation


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

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

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., continue to defend
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2014.

A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty
Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Whitney Automotive Group, Inc., are named defendants in several
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained
asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any
brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its
and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation
and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims
made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant
out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be
material to its consolidated financial statements.

U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (U.S. Auto Parts) offers online
sources for automotive aftermarket parts and repairs information.
The Company principally sells its products, identified as stock
keeping units (SKUs), to individual consumers through its network
of Websites and online marketplaces. The Company's Websites
provide customers with a selection of approximately two million
SKUs with product descriptions and photographs. The Company has
developed a product database that maps its SKUs to product
applications based on vehicle makes, models and years. It offers a
selection of aftermarket auto parts. U.S. Auto Parts classifies
its products into three categories: body parts, engine parts, and
performance parts and accessories. The Company sources its
products from foreign manufacturers and importers located in
Taiwan and China, and from the United States manufacturers and
distributors.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 59 Fibro Suits vs. Watts Water Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending 59 asbestos-related
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 28, 2014.

The Company is defending 59 lawsuits in different jurisdictions,
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. The
complaints in these cases typically name a large number of
defendants and do not identify any particular Company products as
a source of asbestos exposure. As of September 28, 2014, the
Company has obtained a dismissal in every case before it has
reached trial because discovery has failed to yield evidence of
substantial exposure to any Company products.

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (Watts)is a supplier of products
for use in the water quality, water safety, water flow control and
water conservation markets in both North America and Europe with a
presence in Asia. It operates in three geographic segments: North
America, Europe and Asia. Watts has manufacturing facilities, such
as Mexico, China, Bulgaria and Tunisia. Its products are sold to
wholesale distributors and dealers, do-it-yourself (DIY) chains
and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). During the year ended
December 31, 2012, it began classifying its many products into
four universal product lines. These product lines are residential
and commercial flow control products, heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) and gas products, drains and water re-use
products and water quality products. On January 31, 2012, it
completed the acquisition of tekmar Control Systems (tekmar). In
December 2012, it sold its subsidiary Flomatic Corporation, to
Boshart Industries Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,925 Claims as of Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., had 3,925 asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in
suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs
who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously
manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine
clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from
1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics
generally had a useful life of three to twelve months.

"We were defending 3,925 claims as of September 30, 2014.

"As of September 30, 2014, the Company reported 3,925 claims and
an aggregate settlement amount of $433,000.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims.

"Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, and
often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand
has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a
meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible
loss with respect to pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of September 30, 2014
we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,069
claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $9.2 million.
Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The
Company's insurer has confirmed that although the coverage limits
under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have
been exhausted, there still remains approximately $3 million in
coverage limits under other applicable primary policies, and $140
million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that
should be available with respect to current and future asbestos
claims."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the
Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Unit has 7,731 Claims at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp.'s subsidiary had 7,731 asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp.,
which is a subsidiary of the Company, is also a separate defendant
in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a
defendant. Brandon was defending against 7,731 claims as of
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as
Wangner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain
assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile
manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were
assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc.
which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing
asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured
and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset
purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon
did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it
does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise
responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products
manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the
claims that have been asserted against it. As of September 30,
2014, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal,
9,874 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance
carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total
indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings,
subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8%
of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of
indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and
the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for
all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related
to these proceedings."

No amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon claims since
2001.  The Company does not believe a meaningful estimate can be
made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these
remaining claims.

The Company further states: "In some of these asbestos cases, the
Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor
in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired
certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs
allege injury caused by asbestos-containing products alleged to
have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this
acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify
the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We
deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the
acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its
contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed
the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully
moved for dismissal in a number of actions.

"Although we do not believe that a meaningful estimate of a range
of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on
our understanding of the insurance policies available, how
settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our
settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the
Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims
filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate
any material liability relating to the resolution of the
aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance
limits.

"Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently
available information, that the ultimate resolution of the
aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on
the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of
the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of
future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in
claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional
claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a
material adverse effect on our financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is
inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent
primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by
juries."

Albany International Corp. is an advanced textile and material
processing company. The Company's business is a producer of
custom-designed fabrics and belts essential to paper and
paperboard production. The consumable fabrics are used to
manufacture all grades of paper from lightweight paper to
heavyweight containerboard. The Company has five segments: Paper
Machine Clothing segment (PMC), Engineered Composites (AEC),
Albany Door Systems (ADS), Engineered Fabrics (EF) and PrimaLoft
Products. Albany International supplies the worldwide pulp and
paper industry, as well as other process industries, with
technologically advanced structured materials and related
services. The Company maintains manufacturing facilities in
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and the United
States. On January 11, 2012, the Company sold its assets in the
Albany Door Systems (ADS) segment to ASSA ABLOY AB.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AK Steel Had 438 PI Cases Pending as of Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation had 438 asbestos cases, 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.

Since 1990, AK Steel (or its predecessor, Armco Inc.) has been
named as a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos. The great majority of these
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of people who claim to have
been exposed to asbestos while visiting the premises of a current
or former AK Steel facility. The majority of asbestos cases
pending in which AK Steel is a defendant do not include a specific
dollar claim for damages. In the cases that do include specific
dollar claims for damages, the complaint typically includes a
monetary claim for compensatory damages and a separate monetary
claim in an equal amount for punitive damages, and does not
attempt to allocate the total monetary claim among the various
defendants.

The Company had 438 asbestos cases pending at September 30, 2014.

In each case, the amount described is per plaintiff against all of
the defendants, collectively. Thus, it usually is not possible at
the outset of a case to determine the specific dollar amount of a
claim against AK Steel. In fact, it usually is not even possible
at the outset to determine which of the plaintiffs actually will
pursue a claim against AK Steel. Typically, that can only be
determined through written interrogatories or other discovery
after a case has been filed. Thus, in a case involving multiple
plaintiffs and multiple defendants, AK Steel initially only
accounts for the lawsuit as one claim against it. After AK Steel
has determined through discovery whether a particular plaintiff
will pursue a claim against it, it makes an appropriate adjustment
to statistically account for that specific claim. It has been AK
Steel's experience to date that only a small percentage of
asbestos plaintiffs ultimately identify AK Steel as a target
defendant from whom they actually seek damages and most of these
claims ultimately are either dismissed or settled for a small
fraction of the damages initially claimed.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2014, the Company
disclosed a total of $0.9 million paid in settlements.

Since the onset of asbestos claims against AK Steel in 1990, five
asbestos claims against it have proceeded to trial in four
separate cases. All five concluded with a verdict in favor of AK
Steel. AK Steel intends to continue to vigorously defend the
asbestos claims asserted against it. Based upon its present
knowledge, the Company believes it is unlikely that the resolution
in the aggregate of the asbestos claims against AK Steel will have
a materially adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results
of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However,
predictions as to the outcome of pending litigation, particularly
claims alleging asbestos exposure, are subject to substantial
uncertainties. These uncertainties include (1) the significantly
variable rate at which new claims may be filed, (2) the effect of
bankruptcies of other companies currently or historically
defending asbestos claims, (3) the uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, (4) the type and severity of the disease alleged to be
suffered by each claimant, and (5) the potential for enactment of
legislation affecting asbestos litigation.

AK Steel Holding Corporation (AK Holding) is an integrated
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels
and tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation (AK Steel and, together with AK Holding, the Company).
The Company's operations consist primarily of nine steelmaking and
finishing plants and tubular production facilities located in
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Company's operations
produce flat-rolled value-added carbon steels, including coated,
cold-rolled and hot-rolled carbon steel products, and specialty
stainless and electrical steels that are sold in sheet and strip
form, as well as carbon and stainless steel that is finished into
welded steel tubing. In addition, the Company's operations include
European trading companies that buy and sell steel and steel
products and other materials, AK Coal Resources, Inc. In September
2014, AK Steel completes acquisition of Severstal Dearborn.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sealed Air Buys Back Stock from WR Grace Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corporation repurchased 112,500 shares of its common
stock for $4 million from the W.R. Grace Asbestos PI Trust,
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: "On June 13, 2014, Sealed Air repurchased $130
million, or 3,932,244 shares, of common stock at a price of $33.06
per share from the WRG Asbestos PI Trust. As a result, our common
stock in treasury increased by $130 million. The Company funded
the stock repurchase with $110 million from committed credit
facilities and $20 million of accumulated cash and cash
equivalents.

"On August 9, 2007, we announced that our Board of Directors had
approved a share repurchase program authorizing us to repurchase
in the aggregate up to 20 million shares of our issued and
outstanding common stock. This program has no set expiration date.
This program replaced our prior share repurchase program, which we
terminated at that time.

"In the three months ended September 30, 2014, we repurchased
112,500 shares of our common stock for approximately $4 million
under a share trading plan we entered into with one of our brokers
in accordance with Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and pursuant to the share repurchase program previously
approved by our Board of Directors. We continued to repurchase
shares during October 2014. The company funded the stock
repurchase with cash and cash equivalents."

Sealed Air Corporation is engaged in food safety and security,
facility hygiene and product protection business. The Company
serves a range of end markets, including food and beverage
processing, food service, retail, health care and industrial,
commercial and consumer applications. The Company's brands include
bubbles Wrap brand cushioning, Cryovac brand food packaging
solutions and Diversey brand cleaning and hygiene solutions. The
Company operates in four segments: food care, diversey care,
product care and other category, which includes its medical
applications and new venture businesses. During the year ended
December 31, 2013, the Company's operations generated
approximately 65% of its revenue from outside the United States,
including approximately 26% of its revenue from developing
regions. These developing regions are Africa, Asia (excluding
Japan and South Korea), Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Continues to Analyzes EME Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc., continues to analyze the scope of its potential
asbestos liability relating to its subsidiary's acquisition of
Edison Mission Energy, 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, through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may be
subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its
acquisition of EME. The Company is currently analyzing the scope
of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation.

NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG) is an integrated wholesale power generation
and retail electricity company in the United States. NRG is a
wholesale power generator engaged in the ownership and operation
of power generation facilities; the trading of energy, capacity
and related products; and the transacting in and trading of fuel
and transportation services. NRG is a retail energy company
engaged in the supply of energy, services, and sustainable
products to retail customers in competitive markets through
multiple channels and brands like Reliant Energy, Green Mountain
Energy, and Energy Plus (collectively, the Retail Business). In
September 2014, the Company acquired Goal Zero, bringing growing
consumer products company and its suite of personal solar devices
into NRG family.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro's Garlock Sealing Has 2 Pending Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc.'s Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC has two
appeals pending, 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.

GST LLC has a record of success in trials of asbestos cases,
especially before the bankruptcies of many of the historically
significant asbestos defendants that manufactured raw asbestos,
asbestos insulation, refractory products or other dangerous
friable asbestos products. However, it has on occasion lost jury
verdicts at trial. GST has consistently appealed when it has
received an adverse verdict and has had success in a majority of
those appeals. At September 30, 2014, two GST LLC appeals are
pending from adverse decisions totaling $1.5 million.

GST LLC won reversals of adverse verdicts in one of three recent
appellate decisions. In September 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a $500,000 verdict
against GST LLC that was handed down in 2009 by a Kentucky federal
court jury. The federal appellate court found that GST LLC's
motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted
because the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination
of liability. The Sixth Circuit's chief judge wrote that, "On the
basis of this record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was
a substantial cause of [claimant's] mesothelioma would be akin to
saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has
substantially contributed to the ocean's volume." In May 2011, a
three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld GST
LLC's $700,000 share of a 2009 jury verdict, which included
punitive damages, in a lung cancer case against GST LLC in
Kentucky state court. This verdict, which was secured by a bond
pending the appeal, was paid in June 2012. In a Kentucky appeal
from a 2006 verdict against GST LLC, another Kentucky Court of
Appeals panel upheld, in August 2014, GST LLC's share of the
verdict and a $600,000 punitive damage award. The verdict against
GST LLC totaled $874,000. This verdict and post-judgment interest
were secured by a bond in the amount of $1.1 million. The
plaintiff in the case agreed to resolve the case, including claims
for post-judgment interest, for the amount of the bond and to
forego additional accrued interest on the verdict, and GST LLC
agreed to discontinue further appeals. Because the Company was
responsible to the bonding company for the bond amount, the
Company's Coltec subsidiary purchased the verdict from the
plaintiff in September 2014 for the amount of the $1.1 million
bond. As a result, Coltec has a claim against GST LLC for the
amount of the judgment, including post-judgment interest.

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $100.7MM Insurance for Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc., has $100.7 million of insurance coverage
to cover current and future asbestos claims payments, 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: "At September 30, 2014 we had $100.7 million
of insurance coverage we believe is available to cover current and
future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments. GST
has collected insurance payments totaling $95.4 million since the
Petition Date. Of the $100.7 million of available insurance
coverage remaining, we consider $100.0 million (99%) to be of high
quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed
by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment
grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-)
or better. Of the $100.7 million, $64.6 million is allocated to
claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the
Chapter 11 proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for
reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and
estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place
with carriers covering $66.2 million of the remaining available
coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies
in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that
substantially all of the $100.7 million of insurance proceeds will
ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that
the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due.
The $100.7 million is in addition to the $21.3 million collected
in the first nine months of 2014. Based on those agreements and
policies, some of which define specific annual amounts to be paid
and others of which limit the amount that can be recovered in any
one year, we anticipate that $38.7 million will become collectible
at the conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the
insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the
following amounts should be collected in the following years
regardless of when the case concludes:

2015 -- $20 million
2016 -- $18 million
2017 -- $13 million
2018 -- $11 million

"GST LLC has received $8.1 million of insurance recoveries from
insolvent carriers since 2007, including a $900,000 payment
received in the second quarter, and may receive additional
payments from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated
insolvent carrier collections are included in the $100.7 million
of anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover
current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general
liability policies that cover Coltec and certain of its other
subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and
therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other
covered subsidiaries and their assignees."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Reported $279.6MM Fibro Liability Accrual
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enpro Industries, Inc.'s liability accrual for present and future
asbestos claims was $279.6 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 Company states: "Our recorded asbestos liability as of the
June 5, 2010 (the "Petition Date") was $472.1 million. We based
that recorded liability on an estimate of probable and estimable
expenditures to resolve asbestos personal injury claims under
generally accepted accounting principles, made with the assistance
of Garrison and an estimation expert, Bates White, retained by GST
LLC's counsel. The estimate developed was an estimate of the most
likely point in a broad range of potential amounts that GST LLC
might pay to resolve asbestos claims (by settlement in the
majority of the cases except those dismissed or tried) over the
ten-year period following the date of the estimate in the state
court system, plus accrued but unpaid legal fees. The estimate,
which was not discounted to present value, did not reflect GST
LLC's views of its actual legal liability. GST LLC has
continuously maintained that its products could not have been a
substantial contributing cause of any asbestos disease. Instead,
the liability estimate reflected GST LLC's recognition that most
claims would be resolved more efficiently and at a significantly
lower total cost through settlements without any actual liability
determination.

"From the Petition Date through the first quarter of 2014, neither
we nor GST endeavored to update the accrual since the Petition
Date except as necessary to reflect payments of accrued fees and
the disposition of cases on appeal. In each asbestos-driven
Chapter 11 case that has been resolved previously, the amount of
the debtor's liability has been determined as part of a consensual
plan of reorganization agreed to by the debtor, its asbestos
claimants and a legal representative for its potential future
claimants. GST did not believe that there was a reliable process
by which an estimate of such a consensual resolution could be made
and therefore believed that there was no basis upon which it could
revise the estimate last updated prior to the Petition Date.

"Given the Bankruptcy Court's January 2014 decision estimating
GST's liability for present and future mesothelioma claims at $125
million and GST's filing of its first amended proposed plan of
reorganization setting out its intention to fund a plan with total
consideration of $275 million, GST believes that its ultimate
payment to resolve all present and future asbestos claims against
it will be no less than the amounts required under its amended
proposed plan. Similarly, while GST believes it to be an unlikely
worst case scenario, GST believes its ultimate costs to resolve
all asbestos claims against it could be no more than the total
value of GST. As a result, GST believes that its ultimate asbestos
liability will be somewhere in that range between those two values
and therefore believes it is appropriate to revise its estimate to
the low end of the range. Accordingly, GST revised its estimate of
its ultimate payment to resolve all present and future asbestos
claims. The amended plan provides $275 million in total funding
for (a) present and future asbestos claims against GST that have
not been resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the Petition
Date, and (b) administrative and litigation costs. The amended
plan also provides that GST will pay in full claims that had been
resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date and
were not paid prior to the Petition Date. GST estimates the range
of its aggregate liability for unpaid settled asbestos claims to
be from $3.1 million to $16.4 million. Therefore, in accordance
with applicable accounting rules, GST recorded a liability for
claims settled but not paid prior to the Petition Date at the low
end of the range, which is $3.1 million. GST also accrued $1.5
million for verdicts reached prior to the Petition Date that were
not paid prior to the Petition Date and have not been resolved.
Therefore, the liability accrual at September 30, 2014, for
present and future asbestos claims, including claims resolved by
settlement but not paid prior to the Petition Date and pending but
unpaid verdicts, was $279.6 million.

"GST's First Amended Proposed Plan of Reorganization. On May 29,
2014, GST filed an amended proposed plan of reorganization and a
proposed disclosure statement for such amended plan. The plan
provides $275 million in total funding for (a) present and future
asbestos claims against GST that have not been resolved by
settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date, and (b)
administrative and litigation costs. The $275 million is to be
funded by GST ($245 million) and the Company's subsidiary, Coltec
Industries Inc ($30 million), through two facilities -- a
settlement facility (which would receive $245 million) and a
litigation facility (which would receive $30 million). Funds
contained in the settlement facility and the litigation facility
would provide the exclusive remedies for current and future GST
asbestos claimants, other than claimants whose claims had been
resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date and
were not paid prior to the Petition Date. The $275 million amount
is more than double the $125 million that the Bankruptcy Court
found to be a reasonable and reliable measure of the amount
sufficient to satisfy present and future mesothelioma claims
against GST, and was determined based on an economic analysis of
the feasibility of the proposed plan.

"The amended plan also provides that GST will pay in full claims
that had been resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the
Petition Date and were not paid prior to the Petition Date (with
respect to claims resolved by verdict, such payments will be made
only to the extent the verdict becomes final). The amount of such
claims resolved by final verdict is $1.5 million. The Bankruptcy
Court set September 30, 2014 as the bar date for filing proofs of
claim for settled asbestos claims. GST had previously scheduled
and does not dispute settled asbestos claims totaling $2.5
million. Claimants' attorneys timely filed proofs of claims
alleging additional settled asbestos claims in the total amount of
$16.5 million. GST anticipates that it will object to a large
majority of those additional alleged claims. GST estimates the
range of its aggregate liability for unpaid settled asbestos
claims to be from $3.1 million to $16.4 million but believes that
its total aggregate liability for settled asbestos claims will be
less than $10 million.

"The plan includes provisions referred to as the "Parent
Settlement" for the resolution and extinguishment of any and all
alleged derivative claims against us based on GST asbestos
products and entry of an injunction permanently protecting us from
the assertion of such claims. As consideration for the Parent
Settlement, Coltec would contribute $30 million of the amount
proposed to be paid into the settlement facility to pay future
claimants and $500,000 to fund certain plan implementation
expenses and would consent to subordinate our rights to any
insurance coverage in favor of a first priority lien securing $25
million of funding for the litigation facility. Those provisions
are incorporated into the terms of the proposed plan only in the
context of the specifics of that plan, which would result in the
equity interests of GST being retained by the reconsolidation of
GST into the Company with substantial equity above the amount of
equity currently included in our consolidated financial
statements, and an injunction protecting us from future GST
claims.

"Confirmation and consummation of the plan are subject to a number
of risks and uncertainties, including the actions and decisions of
creditors and other third parties that have an interest in the
bankruptcy proceedings, delays in the confirmation or effective
date of a plan of reorganization due to factors beyond GST's or
our control, which would result in greater costs and the
impairment of value of GST, appeals and other challenges to the
plan and risks and uncertainties affecting GST and Coltec's
ability to fund anticipated contributions under the plan as a
result of adverse changes in their results of operations,
financial condition and capital resources, including as a result
of economic factors beyond their control. Accordingly, we cannot
assure you that GST will be able to obtain final approval of its
amended plan of reorganization and the settlement and resolution
of claims and related releases of liability embodied therein, and
the time period for the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings
is not presently determinable."

Enpro Industries, Inc. (Enpro), is engaged in the designing,
development, manufacturing, and marketing of engineered industrial
products. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 61 primary
manufacturing facilities located in 12 countries, including the
United States. The Company operates in three segments: Sealing
Products segment, Engineered Products segment and Engine Products
and Services segment. Sealing Products segment includes its
sealing products, heavy-duty wheel end components,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) products and rubber products.
Engineered Products Segment includes its bearings, aluminum blocks
for hydraulic applications and reciprocating compressor
components. Engine Products and Services segment manufacture,
sells and services heavy-duty, medium-speed diesel, natural gas
and dual fuel reciprocating engines. In March 2014, the Company's
subsidiary, Stemco LP acquired the remaining interest of the
Stemco Crewson LLC joint venture from Tramec, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 42,560 Fibro Claims as of Sept. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had pending 42,560 asbestos claims, 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 is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal
injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly
occurred principally as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor
a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one
of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases.
In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not
identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a
claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been
identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by
asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for
power-generation, industrial and marine use, or by asbestos-
containing grades of decorative micarta, a laminate used in
commercial ships.

Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on
inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some
jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or
no impairment. As of September 30, 2014, the Company had pending
approximately 42,560 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 45,150 as of December 31, 2013 and 45,480 as of
September 30, 2013. During the third quarter of 2014, the Company
received approximately 1,030 new claims and closed or moved to an
inactive docket approximately 2,200 claims. The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has
been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement
with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.
Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that
form the basis of the claim, the quality of evidence supporting
the claims and other factors. The Company's total costs for the
years 2013 and 2012 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax benefits were
approximately $29 million and $21 million, respectively. The
Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may
vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered
in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses.

The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate
to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many
factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding
claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims
by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of
resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of
asbestos claims filed against the Company has trended down in the
past five to ten years and has remained flat in recent years, it
is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and
circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and
types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which
could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities.

CBS Corporation is a mass media company. The Company has
operations in segments, which include Entertainment, Cable
Networks, Publishing, Local Broadcasting and Outdoor. During the
year ended December 31, 2011, contributions to the Company's
consolidated revenues from its segments were Entertainment 52%,
Cable Networks 11%, Publishing 6%, Local Broadcasting 19% and
Outdoor 13%. During 2011, it generated approximately 15% of its
total revenues from international regions. Effective March 26,
2013, the Company acquired 50% interest in The TV Guide Network
from Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. In June 2013, the Company
acquired TV Guide Digital, which includes the popular TVGuide.com
and TV Guide Mobile properties. In October 2013, Platinum Equity
and CBS Corporation announced that an affiliate of Platinum Equity
acquired the assets of CBS Outdoor International (CBSO
International).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc., continues to defend itself against a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate to
businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not involve
products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or relate
to previously owned businesses of the Company which are under new
ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers
or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed
to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified
Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are
being defended by, such sellers and new owners. These sellers and
new owners have met their obligations, in all respects, and the
Company does not have any reason to believe such parties would
fail to fulfill their obligations in the future; however, one of
these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. As of
September 30, 2014, no judgments have been rendered against the
Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company
believes it has strong defenses to the claims being asserted and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters.

AMETEK, Inc. (AMETEK) is a global manufacturer of electronic
instruments and electromechanical devices with operations in North
America, Europe, Asia and South America. The Company markets its
products worldwide through two groups: the Electronic Instruments
Group (EIG) and the Electromechanical Group (EMG). EIG builds
monitoring, testing, calibration and display devices for the
process, aerospace, industrial, power and medical markets. EMG
produces engineered electromechanical connectors for hermetic
(moisture-proof) applications, specialty metals for niche markets
and brushless air-moving motors, blowers and heat exchangers. In
August 2014, the Company acquired AMPTEK, Inc. and Luphos GmbH.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Financial Ups Fibro Reserves by $4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s property and casualty insurance
segment recorded a $24 million pretax special charge to increase
its asbestos reserves by $4 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.

During the third quarter of 2014, AFG completed an in-depth
internal review of its asbestos and environmental exposures
relating to the run-off operations of its property and casualty
insurance segment and exposures related to its former railroad and
manufacturing operations and sites. AFG has periodically conducted
comprehensive external studies of its asbestos and environmental
reserves with the aid of specialty actuarial, engineering and
consulting firms and outside counsel, generally every two years,
with an in-depth internal review during the intervening years.

As a result of the 2014 internal review, AFG's property and
casualty insurance segment recorded a $24 million pretax special
charge to increase its asbestos reserves by $4 million (net of
reinsurance) and its environmental reserves by $20 million (net of
reinsurance). As the overall industry exposure to asbestos has
matured, the focus of litigation has shifted to smaller companies
and companies with ancillary exposures. AFG's insureds with these
exposures have been the driver of the property and casualty
segment's asbestos reserve increases in recent years. The increase
in property and casualty environmental reserves was attributed
primarily to AFG's increased defense costs and a number of claims
where the estimated costs of remediation have increased. There
were no newly identified or emerging broad industry trends that
management believes would significantly impact the overall
adequacy of AFG's A&E reserves.

At September 30, 2014, the property and casualty insurance
segment's insurance reserves include A&E reserves of $300 million,
net of reinsurance recoverables. At September 30, 2014, the
property and casualty insurance segment's three-year survival
ratios, excluding amounts associated with the settlements of two
large asbestos claims, were 14.4 times paid losses for asbestos
reserves, 6.1 times paid losses for environmental reserves and 9.9
times paid losses for total A&E reserves. These ratios compare
favorably with data published by SNL Financial LC, which indicate
that industry survival ratios were 10.5 for asbestos, 6.1 for
environmental, and 9.2 for total A&E reserves at December 31,
2013.

American Financial Group, Inc. (AFG) is a holding company, which
through subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in property and
casualty insurance, focusing on specialized commercial products
for businesses and in the sale of traditional fixed and fixed-
indexed annuities in the individual, bank and education markets.
The Company's segment includes: property and casualty insurance,
annuity, run-off long-term care and life and other. In April 2014,
the Company announced that it has completed the purchase of Summit
Holding Southeast Inc and its related companies from Liberty
Mutual Insurance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling Favoring Owens PI Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning Corporation, a manufacturer of fiberglass
insulation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2000 amid a slew of
asbestos-related litigation.  The company's reorganization plan --
approved by the bankruptcy court in 2006 -- created the Owens
Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust,
which assumed all of the company's liabilities for asbestos-
related personal-injury claims.  The plan also established
procedures for processing those claims.

William Jackson submitted a claim to the Trust.  The claim was
rejected, first by the Trust and later by an arbitrator.  Jackson
sued the Trust in Illinois state court, lost, and then sued the
Trust again in federal court.  The district court concluded that
claim preclusion barred the suit and entered judgment for the
Trust.  Nine months later, Jackson filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the district court denied.  Jackson
challenges that ruling.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in an opinion
dated Dec. 1, 20134, affirmed the district court's ruling after
concluding that the district court acted well within its
discretion when it denied Jackson's motion.

The appeals case is WILLIAM JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OWENS
CORNING/FIBREBOARD ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-2471 (7th Cir.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/HGrr9Wfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Approves Deal Remanding "Ard" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Curtis Ard alleges that he was exposed to asbestos-
containing products while employed in oilfields and shipyards
starting in the mid-1970s.  In 2013, he became aware that he had
developed lung cancer, which he alleges was caused by his exposure
to asbestos.  On May 27, 2014, he and his wife Judy Ard filed suit
in Missouri state court against 75 defendants including
ConocoPhillips Company, Ensco Offshore Company, and General Gasket
Corporation, a Missouri corporation.  The Plaintiffs bring state-
law claims for strict liability, negligence, willful and wanton
misconduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, battery, conspiracy, and
loss of consortium.

On October 29, 2014, defendant Conoco removed the matter to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331.  The Plaintiffs and Conoco have now entered into a
stipulation for dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against Conoco
without prejudice.  They also move to remand the matter to state
court.

U.S. District Judge Carol E. Jackson, in a memorandum and order
dated Nov. 25, 2014, granted the joint motion to remand and Conoco
is dismissed, without prejudice, from the action.

The case is CURTIS ARD and JUDY ARD, Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL,
INC., f/ka DELAVAL, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-1832
(CEJ)(E.D. Mo.).  A full-text copy of Judge Jackson's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/zHzbcafrom Leagle.com.

Curtis Ard and Judy Ard, Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants,
represented by Gail G. Renshaw, Gori Julian & Associates, Randy L.
Gori, GORI AND JULIAN, P.C., Erin Lyn Beavers, John Barry Julian,
GORI AND JULIAN, P.C. & Sara M. Guarino, GORIJULIAN ASSOCIATES P
C.

ALFA Laval, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Paul W. Lore.

Ameron International Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by John I. Schaberg, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND
MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Dayna L. Johnson, GREENFELDER, HEMKER &
GALE, P.C. & Russell K. Scott, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Melanie E. Riley,
Esq. -- mriley@sandbergphoenix.com -- at SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C. &
Michael P. McGinley, LASHLY AND BAER, P.C..

Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., Defendant, Cross
Defendant, Counter Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented
by Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Thomas
L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Nicholas B.
Bunnell, PITZER SNODGRASS, P.C..

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

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant and Counter Defendant,
represented by Gary L. Smith & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS
LLP.

Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Claimant, represented by Daniel G.
Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. &Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Gregory T. Goldberg, STAMOS AND TRUCCO
LLP.

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

Cleaver-Brooks, a division of AQUA-CHEM, INC.,, Cross Defendant,
represented by Timothy A. McGuire, REEG LAWYERS, LLC.

Cleaver-Brooks, Defendant and Counter Defendant, represented
by Timothy A. McGuire, REEG LAWYERS, LLC.

ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Alan B. Hoffman, HUSCH BLACKWELL,
LLP, Mark G. Zellmer, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & Erik L. Hansell,
HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.

Crane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Defendant,
Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Benjamin John
Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Crosby Valve, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND
FITZGERALD.

Daimler Trucks North America, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Michael D. Moss, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS
&Virginia M. Giokaris, RASMUSSEN AND WILLIS.

DAP, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ
LLC & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ &Lindsay A. Dibler,
KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Flowserve U.S., Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith & James D. Maschhoff,
HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Ryan Thomas Barke, GREENSFELDER AND
HEMKER, PC.

Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S.
Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ.

Foster Wheeler Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Robert Drake Andrekanic, CRIVELLO AND CARLSON.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Patrick M. Grand,
MATUSHEK, NILLES & SINARS, L.L.C. & Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP.

General Gasket Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Counter
Defendant, represented by Albert J. Bronsky, Esq. --
ajbronsky@bjpc.com -- at BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

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

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol,
KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Dennis J. Graber & Mark D. Bauman, HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON, LLP.

Grinnell, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Brady
Sherrod Edwards.

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

Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER
BROOM.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter
Defendant, and Cross Claimant, represented by Matthew R. Fields,
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC.

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

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

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC, Lindsay A.
Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ.

Kaiser-Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Virginia M. Giokaris, RASMUSSEN
AND WILLIS.

Krogh Pump Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Patrick M. Grand, Esq. --
PMGrand@matushek.com -- at MATUSHEK, NILLES & SINARS, L.L.C..

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

Nagle Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Patrick M. Grand, MATUSHEK, NILLES &
SINARS, L.L.C..

NMBFIL, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND
ROYSTER.

Nooter Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Douglas M. Nieder, Esq. --
dnieder@lewisrice.com -- at LEWIS RICE.

Peterbilt Motor Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by James R. Williams, SEGAL AND
MCCAMBRIDGE.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew
M. Voss, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC &Theodore D. Agniel,
GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Matthew E. Pelikan, WILLIAMS AND VENKER,
LLC &Thomas L. Orris, WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

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

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Kent L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Special Electric Company, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Timothy A. McGuire, REEG LAWYERS, LLC.

Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith & James D. Maschhoff,
HERZOG CREBS LLP.

SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay
A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Sunoco, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Steven
B. Beshore, HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.

Texaco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter Defendant,
represented by Gregory T. Goldberg, STAMOS AND TRUCCO LLP.

The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas W. Hayes, Esq. -- thayes@mckenna-law.com --
at MCKENNA STORER.

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

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Counter
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, LEWIS AND BRISBOIS,
LLP.

URS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Defendant,
and Claimant, represented by Kenneth M. Burke, BROWN AND JAMES,
P.C..

Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S.
Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Defendant,
Cross Claimant, and Counter Claimant, represented by Benjamin John
Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Defendant,
and Cross Claimant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Melanie
R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP &Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and
Counter Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith & James D.
Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by John D. Risvold, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Flips Ruling in 2 Suits v. Colgate
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joyce Barlow and Clara Mosko separately sued Colgate-
Palmolive Company, among numerous other companies, and asserted
that each of the defendants' products had at some point exposed
them to asbestos.  As to Colgate, the Plaintiffs' theory was that
the company's "Cashmere Bouquet" line of powder makeup products
contained harmful levels of asbestos and had thereby contributed
to the Plaintiffs' health problems.  Colgate removed the two cases
to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship.  At the
Plaintiffs' counsel's motion, the district court remanded the two
cases to state court.  Shortly after returning to state court, the
Plaintiffs filed a joint motion to consolidate their cases with
two other asbestos-related cases.  Colgate opposed the motion,
arguing it could not receive a fair trial in a consolidated
proceeding because the alleged sources of asbestos were too
different among the cases.  In their reply briefs, the Plaintiffs
made statements, which contradict their representations to the
federal district court judges.

After the post-remand hearing, Colgate moved in the district court
for relief from the Plaintiffs' purported misrepresentations.
Specifically, Colgate sought relief under Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and asked that the district court
sanction the Plaintiffs' attorneys by imposing monetary penalties,
referring them to the state bar, and awarding any other relief
that the district court deemed appropriate. Colgate moved for
relief under Rule 60(b)(3) as a supplement to its Rule 11 motions
and sought vacatur of the remand orders.

Although the district court characterized the allegations in the
motions as "substantial" and acknowledged that the different
statements by the Plaintiffs' counsel "appear to be in sharp
conflict," the court concluded that 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(d)
deprived it of jurisdiction to vacate or strike its remand orders.
Colgate's appeal, which involves the interplay between 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(d), which prohibits federal courts from reviewing
orders remanding cases to state court, and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 11 and 60(b)(3), which provide means for federal courts
to remedy and deter the perpetration of fraud on the courts,
followed.

In an opinion dated Nov. 25, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling after
concluding that using the rules to safeguard the courts from fraud
does not amount to the "review" proscribed by Section 1447(d).

The appeals cases are JOYCE BARLOW, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLGATE
PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN CRANE-HOUDAILLE,
INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & COMPANY, INC.; HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES,
INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company; UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES
COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE &
RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a Kelly Springfield Tire Company; MCIC, INC.,
and its remaining Director Trustees, Robert I. McCormick,
Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Schunk; CBS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc., Successor by merger to
CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A.W.
CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, individually and as
successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.;
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,
individually and as successor in interest to Champion
International Corporation and U.S. Plywood Corp.; BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B. Fuller Co.,
Aventis CropScience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc.,
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
individually and as successors in interest to Crouse Hinds Co.;
PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., f/k/a Square D
Company, individually and as successor in interest to Electric
Controller and Manufacturing Co.; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC,
individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; FOSTER
WHEELER CORPORATION; THE WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST;
CONWED CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA PACIFIC
CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Bestwall
Gypsum Co., Defendants; and CLARA G. MOSKO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and JOHN CRANE-
HOUDAILLE, INCORPORATED; E.L. STEBBING & CO., INCORPORATED;
HAMPSHIRE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a John H. Hampshire Company;
UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY; J.H. FRANCE REFRACTORIES COMPANY;
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, f/k/a Kelly Springfield Tire
Company; MCIC, INC., and its remaining Director Trustees, Robert
I. McCormick, Elizabeth McCormick and Patricia Schunk; CBS
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc., f/k/a
Westinghouse Electric Corporation; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION,
individually and as successor to Bestwall Gypsum Co.; KAISER
GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL
PAPER COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to
Champion International Corporation and U.S. Plywood Corp.; BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., individually and as successor in interest to
Benjamin Foster Co., Amchem Products, Inc., H.B. Fuller Co.,
Aventis CropScience USA, Inc., Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Inc.,
Rhone-Poulenc, Inc. and Rhodia, Inc.; COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.,
individually and as successors in interest to Crouse Hinds Co.;
PFIZER CORPORATION; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., f/k/a Square D
Company, individually and as successor in interest to Electric
Controller and Manufacturing Co.; FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION; THE
WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST; CONWED CORPORATION;
GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC, individually and as successor to Bestwall
Gypsum Co.; 3M COMPANY; MALLINCKRODT, INC.; CROWN, CORK & SEAL
CO., INC.; KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; WALTER E. CAMPBELL CO., INC.;
KRAFFT-MURPHY COMPANY, individually and as successor to National
Asbestos Company, a dissolved Delaware Corporation; AC&R
INSULATION CO., INC.; COTY, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; LUZENAC
AMERICA INC.; R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC.; BAYER CORPORATION, as
successor in interest to Sterling Drug, Inc., and Sterling-
Winthrop Inc.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendants, NOS. 13-1839,
13-1840 (4th Cir.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/AfME93from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Faith Elizabeth Gay, Esq. -- faithgay@quinnemanuel.com --
at QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, New York,
for Appellant.  Jeffrey John Utermohle, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G.
ANGELOS, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Thomas P. Bernier, Esq. -- tbernier@smsm.com -- at SEGAL
MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, Baltimore, Maryland; William B.
Adams, Esq. -- williamadams@quinnemanuel.com -- at QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant.
Jennifer L. Lilly, Thomas Kelly, Craig Silverman, LAW OFFICES OF
PETER G. ANGELOS, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Sets Trial on "Boyd" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Gerald Boyd, who claims to be dying of mesothelioma due to
asbestos exposure, and Judith Boyd have filed a petition for the
issuance of an extraordinary writ commanding the California
superior court to vacate its October 31, 2014, order denying their
motion for calendar preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 36, subdivisions (a) and (d), and directing the superior
court to grant the motion and schedule a trial of their matter
within 120 days of October 31, 2014, in accordance with section
36, subdivision (f).

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division
Three, requested the submission of prompt opposition to the
petition and advised the parties the court was considering the
issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance pursuant to
Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180
(Palma).  Most of the 15 defendants have not opposed the motion in
the trial court or before the court, but opposition to the
petition has been filed on behalf of three defendants and real
parties in interest.  Having reviewed the petition, oppositions,
and supporting documentation, the Court of Appeals granted the
writ and directed the trial court to schedule trial within 120
days of October 31, 2014.

The case is GERALD BOYD et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; 3M COMPANY et al., Real Parties in
Interest, NO. A143511 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
decision dated Nov. 26, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/1cpm3Z
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review TRO in Inmate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, in a Nov. 24, 2014, memorandum and order,
denied a motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of a
motion for temporary restraining order in a civil rights lawsuit
filed by an inmate at Vienna Correctional Center.  The inmate
filed the action for deprivations of his constitutional rights and
alleged, among other things, that he is being exposed to asbestos-
covered pipes and molds.

The case is CHRISTOPHER BRANCH, No. R33892, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS
DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, PAT QUINN, S.A. GODINEZ, and LARUE LOVE,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-01240-JPG (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Gilbert's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/x4t32Ufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDOC Dropped as Defendant in Inmate's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lindsey is currently incarcerated at Vienna Correctional
Center, where he is serving sentences for two drug offenses. He
has brought a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, complaining that he is being subjected to unsanitary
conditions of confinement.  The Plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that the building has asbestos, causing him to fear for
his health.  As Defendants, he names the Illinois Department of
Corrections, Governor Pat Quinn, IDOC Director S.A. Godinez,
Vienna Warden Robert Hilliard, and Vienna Assistant Warden Larue
Love.  The Plaintiff seeks money damages, as well as an order to
close the building until all repairs are made and require the
prison to limit the number of inmates housed there to 925, which
he claims is the institution's capacity.

Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in a Nov. 26, 2014, memorandum and
opinion, dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Judge
Reagan also dismissed, with prejudice, IDOC as defendant in the
action.

The case is BRANDON A. LINDSEY, # M-38201, Plaintiff, v. IDOC, PAT
QUINN, S.A. GODINEZ, ROBERT HILLIARD, and LARUE LOVE, Defendants,
CASE NO. 14-CV-1247-MJR (S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Reagan's Decision is available at http://is.gd/i3PUCBfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IMO Granted Summary Judgment in "McMann" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan and Donna McMann filed a complaint alleging that Mr. McMann
was exposed to asbestos while working for numerous defendants,
including IMO Industries, Inc., individually and as successor in
interest to DeLaval Turbine, Inc.  IMO filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing that the McManns had no actual evidence
supporting their allegations.  The McManns failed to respond.

Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, in a Nov. 26, 2014, order,
granted IMO's motion for summary judgment because no material
questions of fact exist on the McMann's claim against IMO or
DeLaval.  Judge Settle pointed out that, in this case, the McManns
have failed to submit any evidence in support of their claim
against IMO.

The case is ALAN McMANN and DONNA McMANN, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. C14-5429 BHS (W.D. Wash.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Settle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/tmRGdP
from Leagle.com.

Alan McMann and Donna McMann, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett B
Naman, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN
COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC &
Christopher B Norris, THE NEMEROFF LAW FIRM.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry
Neal Mesher, Esq. -- barry.mesher@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK
LLP, Brian D Zeringer, Esq. -- brian.zeringer@sedgwicklaw.com --
at SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, Esq. --
rachel.reynolds@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK LLP.

AstenJohnson Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel Ruttenberg,
Esq. -- druttenberg@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY & MANSFIELD &
J. Scott Wood, Esq. -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- at FOLEY &
MANSFIELD PLLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S Marks,
Esq. -- chris.marks@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK LLP & R Dirk
Bernhardt, Esq. -- dirk.bernhardt@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK
LLP.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G William Shaw, Esq. --
bill.shaw@klgates.com -- at K&L GATES LLP.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
David D Mordekhov, Esq. -- dmordekhov@gandtlawfirm.com -- at
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC & Ronald C Gardner, Esq. --
rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- at GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by John
Michael Mattingly, Esq. -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO
MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin J Craig,
Esq. -- kcraig@gordonrees.com -- at GORDON & REES LLP & Mark B
Tuvim, Esq. -- mtuvim@gordonrees.com -- at GORDON & REES.

Pacific Construction Systems Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason
H Daywitt, Esq. -- jdaywitt@rizzopc.com -- at RIZZO MATTINGLY
BOSWORTH PC.

Pfizer Inc, Defendant, represented by Marissa Alkhazov, Esq. --
malkhazov@bpmlaw.com -- at BETTS PATTERSON & MINES.

SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly,
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Thomas Dee Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by D K Yoshida,
Esq. -- dyoshida@omwlaw.com -- at OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Obtains Summary Judgment in PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, granted Crane
Co.'s Crane's re-filed motion for summary judgment in the
asbestos-related case styled MIKE THURMON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
A.W. CHESTERTON, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-
CV-01407-CAP (N.D. Ga.), after concluding that there is no
evidentiary factual basis to support the conclusion that the
asbestos-containing replacement parts to which the decedent was
allegedly exposed were Crane products.  A full-text copy of Judge
Pannell's Nov. 21, 2014, order is available at http://is.gd/uSC0ly
from Leagle.com.

Mike Thurmon, in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of William
H. Thurmon, Sr., deceased; Mary K. Thurmon; Helen Johnson; William
H. Thurmon, Jr.; George Thurmon; Esther Rhidenhour; Mark Thurmon;
Patricia Guthrie; Joan Greenlees; and Julie Chambers, in their
capacities as the surviving children of William H. Thurmon, Sr.,
deceased, Plaintiffs, represented by James R. Vergura, The Buck
Law Firm & Robert Cape Buck, The Buck Law Firm.

Crane, Co., Defendant, represented by Lee Ann Sparks Anand, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough-ATL.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Accurso Wins $10.8-Mil. Fibro Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Brianne Pfannenstiel, writing for Kansas City Business Journal,
reported that the Accurso Law Firm reached a $10.8 million
settlement on behalf of the family of a former mechanic who died
of mesothelioma after asbestos exposure.

The man, a former Jackson County resident and mechanic, worked for
two years for a company where he was exposed to dust from friction
products, such as brake pads, that contained asbestos. The name of
the company is confidential as part of the settlement agreement,
said Lou Accurso, who represented the man.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012 and died
three months later at age 45.

"I had an opportunity to meet the victim before he died, and he
came from an unbelievable family -- just wonderful people,"
Accurso said. "They were some of the greatest clients I've ever
had the honor of representing."

Accurso said that to his knowledge, the $10.8 million settlement
is the highest for a single victim in Missouri history.
Previously, the record was a $10 million settlement that Accurso
also helped orchestrate for the family of a Jackson County
Courthouse employee who died of mesothelioma.

The biggest challenge in the case was tracking down the man's
former co-workers who could testify to the working conditions.

"I knocked on doors from the day after Christmas through
Valentine's Day," he said. "I finally found six of them. ... It
was critical because then I had someone who could testify to his
exposure to asbestos.

They described in great detail where his workspace was located,
how often he did brake jobs, how often other mechanics did brake
jobs, even what the asbestos dust level was like in the workplace
and the total lack of safety procedures or equipment to reduce or
eliminate the exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Washington Fibro Removal Firms Fined $379,100
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that two asbestos removal firms have
been fined more than $379,000 for failing to remove quantities of
asbestos from a demolition site in Seattle after the companies
certified that they had.

The Washington state Department of Labor and Industry accuses the
two companies of 19 serious violations of rules designed to keep
workers and the public safe.

KOMO-TV reports documents show some of the infractions against
Partners Construction of Bonney Lake and Asbestos Construction
Management of Federal Way were paperwork infractions but others
were based on asbestos debris at the site of an apartment
building.

Neighbors and other contractors said the debris pile remained on
site while state inspectors investigated and ultimately made sure
the asbestos was removed. The companies told KOMO-TV they would be
appealing the fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Taskforce Set Up to Contain Cancer Clusters
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Vogler and Daryl Passmore, writing for The Courier-Mail,
reported that Premier Campbell Newman has ordered a top-level
taskforce to investigate links between deaths and illnesses in
suburbs around the sites of two former Brisbane, Australia,
asbestos factories.

The Courier-Mail has reported 20 cases of deadly mesothelioma have
been identified within a 1.5km radius of the old Wunderlich plant
in Gaythorne and the former James Hardie site in Newstead.

Mr Newman has been briefed on the possible asbestos contamination
and he instructed his director-general Jon Grayson to establish a
taskforce to deal with concerns.

"Community concerns over asbestos at Gaythorne and Newstead need
to be addressed," Mr Newman said.

"I've established a taskforce to deal with this."

The taskforce is expected to co-ordinate resources from different
government departments and outside organisations that may need to
be involved.

Independent testing commissioned by The Courier-Mail in October
found asbestos dust in the roofs of five out of six homes and
pieces of asbestos dumped around a nearby creek.

A check of the Queensland Cancer Registry uncovered the 20 cases
although health authorities stressed that the findings were
preliminary.

Eight cases were from around the Gaythorne site and the remainder
were from the Newstead area.

The check of the registry dated back to 1982.

However, they only capture people who were living in the area at
the time they were diagnosed.

Further analysis of the situation is needed to trace patients who
have moved in and out of the area over the past few decades. The
two factories in Gaythorne and Newstead operated for almost 50
years.

They were not shut down until 1983.

Gaythorne residents said they remembered homes in surrounding
streets were regularly coated in powdery dust from the plant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aussie Worker Mows Over Illegal Fibro Dump
-----------------------------------------------------------
Primrose Riordan and Emma Kelly, writing for The Canberra Times,
reported that WorkSafe Australian Capital Territory sent
inspectors to the site of an illegal asbestos dump off Brindabella
Road at Coree after a worker drove a mower over the dangerous
material.

The incident poses a significant health risk for the person
steering the mower who is likely to have breathed in asbestos
fibres.

WorkSafe ACT Commissioner Mark McCabe sent two inspectors to the
site after emergency services were notified of the incident at
10:32am.

"From what I understand a contractor was cutting long grass on the
edge of a fire trail off Brindabella Road at Coree," Mr McCabe
said.

"He ran over what appears to be illegally dumped asbestos. Because
it was a mower that he was operating, it caused the material to be
broken up and released into the air."

Mr McCabe said the site had been cordoned off. The material was
assessed by Robson Environmental and later found to contain
asbestos.

"We have engaged licensed asbestos assessors in order to determine
how to get rid of the material and the action has been put in
place to ensure the safety of the workers involved," Mr McCabe
said.

"We're quite concerned at the likely exposure. There is a
particularly strong likelihood [the worker] would have breathed
some of that in.

"The fact someone inhaled that doesn't mean an automatic disease
or condition but it is the way these things do happen."

Mr McCabe said determining where the dumped material came from
would be extremely difficult.

"No one would have known it was there or thought to look," he
said.

"Unless there's something in the rubble that was left that tells
us where it came from, it's likely to be very hard to establish
what the source is."

ACT Fire and Rescue also attended the scene.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newtownabbey Roofing Firm Fined GBP9,000
---------------------------------------------------------
News Letter reported that a Co Antrim roofing company has been
fined GBP9,000 for failing to ensure the safety of its employees
and for breaching regulations surrounding the removal of asbestos.

Abbey Roofing Specialists Limited, which is based in Newtownabbey,
was also ordered to pay GBP1,500 towards prosecution costs after
being brought to court on four separate charges.

The company's offending emerged after an employee fell through the
roof of a garage he was working on in June last year.

The incident -- which left the member of staff with significant
injuries including multiple fractures -- also exposed a lack of
training and assessment when it came to asbestos.

Abbey Roofing, which was represented in court by its director
Trevor Smyth, admitted the four charges brought against it. They
were failing to ensure the health and safety of employees, failing
to provide an asbestos assessment, failing to provide asbestos
training and also failing to prevent exposure to asbestos.

Crown prosecutor Philip Henry said that on June 24, 2013, several
members of staff from the roofing specialists were working on the
roof of a garage at Beechill Park Avenue in Belfast. One of the
employees fell through the roof when an asbestos sheet snapped,
and during the fall he banged off scaffolding and landed between
the scaffolding and the wall.

The severely injured man was rushed to hospital where he was
treated for multiple fractures. He remained in the high dependency
unit for two days, and also attended as an out-patient as well as
being referred to a shoulder specialist.

The court heard that despite the seriousness of his injuries, the
long-term employee is now back at work and continues to have a
good working relationship with his employers.

Mr Henry said that the work Abbey was contracted to undertake at
the garage included the removal of concrete slabs from inside the
property which contained asbestos. These slabs were bolted in,
presenting a difficult task, and the initial plan was that a
mobile scaffolding unit would be moved along the distance of the
building and would be lowered and raised as needed.

However, when it was determined that this was not possible, staff
on site were tasked to go on to the roof and use a grinder to cut
away some of the nails securing the sheets.

Telling the court "using a grinder should be the last resort
rather than the first resort", Mr Henry said this decision failed
to assess the presence of asbestos, whether it would become
airborne and the impact this would have on employees.

Following the incident, an investigation was launched and it was
determined that Abbey Roofing had failed to provide the necessary
asbestos training to the five on-site staff members, and it had
also failed to test the concrete sheets which contained asbestos
before staff started work on the garage.

Mr Henry said that following the incident, the company was now
aware that the grinder used on the day "was not the appropriate
tool to use in this situation because of the risk of releasing
asbestos".

A defence barrister said Abbey Roofing accepted the deficiencies,
telling the court "there was a lack of experience in dealing with
asbestos and some naivety in that regard". He also said that since
last summer's incident, the company fully cooperated with the
Health and Safety Executive.

The barrister added that the company has since undergone asbestos
training, and also revealed that despite this training, Abbey no
longer undertakes any asbestos work.

Telling Judge Brian Sherrard that the roofing company "takes
health and safety very seriously", the barrister pointed out that
in four decades of business, Abbey had never been before any court
and is a "very reputable company".

The barrister also said that despite difficult economic times,
Abbey had a workforce of 23 people.

Judge Brian Sherrard noted that the company has "been in business,
through good times and bad" for four decades and continues to
employ a workforce of over 20 people.

Regarding the incident which led to the charges being brought,
Judge Sherrard said the fall could have been avoided with the use
of proper resources, such as a cherry picker as opposed to a
grinder. He also spoke of "no adequate assessment of the hazardous
task" of removing asbestos sheeting being given to staff prior to
the work being undertaken.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff's Evidence Found Vague, Speculative
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the asbestos multidistrict litigation judge has granted
summary judgment to Nissan North American, Inc., over "vague and
speculative" evidence alleging asbestos exposure from its
vehicles.

Judge Eduardo Robreno filed the opinion on Sept. 30 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but it
wasn't filed online until Nov. 3.

The case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in July 2012.

Plaintiff Jo Ann Relyea claimed she was exposed to asbestos while
working part-time as an office manager and bookkeeper at an
automotive repair shop in New York. As a result of her exposure,
she developed mesothelioma and died in November 2012.

Nissan manufactured automobiles, which Relyea alleged were
supplied with and used asbestos-containing brakes and clutches.

Nissan moved for summary judgment, arguing there is insufficient
evidence to establish causation from its products.

The decedent argued that she provided evidence asbestos exposure
from brakes and clutches manufactured and supplied by the
defendant.

Additionally, she claimed the defendant is liable under New York
law "for contributing to the foreseeable use of asbestos-
containing replacement components with its products by
manufacturing them with these hazardous original components."

Relyea provided a deposition prior to her death, testifying that
for approximately five years she worked part-time at the
automotive repair shop. She explained that she worked in an area
with a window into the mechanics' area and that she would
sometimes go into the mechanics' area.

She testified that she did not recall handling an asbestos-
containing product but believes she may have been exposed to
asbestos from the products onsite due to lack of ventilation,
trapping dust in the facility.

In support of the allegations, the decedent also provided
testimony from her former co-worker Alan Weitlich, who said the
decedent would periodically come into the mechanics' area where
the repair work was being performed.

Weitlich explained that Nissan vehicles were one of the most
common types of vehicles repaired at the shop.

He added that brake and clutch repairs were routinely done at the
shop. More specifically, brake jobs were done two or three times
per day, and clutch jobs occurred one or two times per month.

Weitlich claimed the brakes used in the 1980s, the time period
Relyea worked at the repair shop, typically contained asbestos.

Furthermore, the decedent pointed to various documents allegedly
indicating that all brakes and clutches at the time contained
asbestos and that information detailing the asbestos hazards was
published and available to the defendant.

Robreno concluded there is no evidence that Relyea was ever
exposed to respirable asbestos from brakes or clutches on any
Nissan vehicle.  He also held that no reasonable jury could
conclude that the decedent was exposed from asbestos-containing
components of a Nissan automobile, because "any such findings
would be impermissibly conjectural."

"In short, the nature of plaintiff's evidence is too vague and
speculative to support a finding of causation against defendant.
This is particularly true in light of the fact that it is
undisputed that numerous types of automobiles other than Nissan
were also routinely worked on at the shop," he wrote.

Therefore, summary judgment was proper.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paul Napoli Returns to Fibro Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that Senior Partner Paul Napoli of the Napoli, Bern, Ripka &
Shkolnik law firm has resumed responsibilities in the firm's
asbestos docket after being cleared by doctors from leukemia.

Napoli will begin working with the firm's other asbestos attorneys
on preparing cases for trial and is planning to assume 100 percent
of his former responsibilities by early December.  However, his
work will be limited to New York until next June while he is on
travel restrictions from his doctor.  Napoli said he is excited to
be back in the full swing of things, saying he expects his work to
help him complete a full recovery.

"Some people go to work to make money and some people enjoy work,"
he said.

Napoli said he didn't have any plans to make changes to the firm's
asbestos department, but reiterated that the firm has made a
commitment to reduce the number of cases it takes, focusing
instead on the quality of cases.  However, he added that the firm
will continue to file as many cases that are necessary as clients
continue to bring appropriate claims.

At a September meeting in St. Louis, the firm talked with local
asbestos attorneys to discuss past mistakes, specifically with the
firm's initial approach to filing asbestos lung cancer cases, when
it announced that it intended to file less cases after thoroughly
conducting complete evaluations and reviews of the cases.

At the St. Louis meeting, fellow senior partner Marc Bern praised
Napoli's strength, saying he did not letting his diagnosis get in
the way of his work as he continued to be involved in the firm's
asbestos department as much as possible.

However, Bern's sentiments towards Napoli at the company's meeting
contrast significantly from an alleged feud between the two
partners.

According to a New York Post article published on its website, a
"power struggle" between Napoli and Bern developed when Bern
claims he noticed some irregularities in the firm's operations
after Napoli was diagnosed with cancer.

Bern did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, Paul and his wife Marie Napoli provided a statement in
response to the article saying "the Post captured only part of the
story and twisted the claims to make tabloid news."

It went on to say, "As many of you know, Marc for inexplicable
reasons, decided once I got sick to try and take over the law firm
I have built over the last 20 years. He quietly waited until I
went under the knife for my transplant before firing key employees
who worked for me in running the firm. At the same time, he fired
my 72 year old father (the biggest earner in the office in
personal injury). While in ICU Marie had to leave my side and rush
to Court to get the Court to order him to cease.

"Despite the fact we were best friends, that I was the best man at
his wedding, and identified at the morgue the body of his
neglected son who died of heroin, he did not visit me once in the
hospital, nor call or even email.  All my attempts to connect to
date have been met with utter silence. While I always wondered
after five wives whether him and I would have any issues I never
imagined the lengths of the deception or the lows a single person
could go to.  I heard a great quote about friendship: 'everyone
wants to ride with you in a limo, but what you want is someone who
will take the bus with you when the limo breaks down'.  True
friends help in times of adversity and times when you are sick,
they don't abandon you and they certainly don't choose to hurt
you.

"While Bern's litigation tactics are deplorable, this does not
change the fact that our family is stronger than ever and the firm
continues to operate as usual.  While our marriage went through a
hard time, like many do, but that is behind us now.  My wife has
been nothing but loving in my time of need -- taking care of me
every night and day while I recover from this terrible cancer. I
love her deeply."

Calling his diagnosis a "tipping point," Napoli said catching his
disease was a close call.

He began feeling ill on a Friday and by Tuesday, his mother-in-law
(a devout Catholic) told him that she knew something was wrong
with his blood. He agreed to go to the hospital the next morning
when he was admitted immediately. He said doctors informed him
that if he had waited just hours longer, he would have suffered
major organ failure and would not have survived the cancer.

After bone marrow transplants from his younger brother (the only
match they could locate) and other cancer treatments, he said he
has been in remission since July, but it was confirmed on Oct. 7.

In support of his leukemia, Napoli's wife, Maria Napoli, ran in
the New York City marathon, raising about $50,000 for cancer.

Napoli said much of the donations came from asbestos plaintiffs
and defense lawyers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foster Wheeler Off the Hook in PI Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reported that a North
Carolina federal judge has ruled that Foster Wheeler Energy Corp.
and The William Powell Co. can't be held liable by the family of a
man who died of mesothelioma, finding the plaintiffs couldn't
prove the man had actually been exposed to asbestos from the
companies' products.

In the first of two separate opinions, U.S. District Judge
Catherine C. Eagles concluded that testimony from a former co-
worker of plaintiff Ralph Logan, who had worked with him in the
same Getty Petroleum Corp. oil refinery, amounted only to evidence
that Logan had worked around two Foster Wheeler boilers that had
asbestos-containing gasketing material removed and replaced 20 to
30 times in 30 years. That testimony didn't show that the boilers
contained asbestos-containing gaskets when it was sold by Foster
Wheeler to the refinery, she said.

In the second opinion, Judge Eagles drew a similar conclusion when
she found that testimony from the co-worker, Louis Pederson,
stated only that he "could have" seen Logan working around valves
manufactured by Powell and that he may have been exposed to
asbestos dust as a result.

She granted Foster Wheeler's and Powell's motions for summary
judgment.

"Here, the evidence is circumstantial, indirect, and weak: Mr.
Pederson did not usually work directly with Mr. Logan, Mr. Logan
'would' have been around asbestos dust 'if' he was present, and
Mr. Logan's work around Powell valves was 'infrequent,' " she
wrote in the Powell opinion. "Even when taken together with the
plaintiffs' evidence of Mr. Logan's general job duties and the
large number of Powell valves on site, this is insufficient to
draw an inference of exposure from Powell valves."

Judge Eagles was unmoved by the plaintiffs' argument that Foster
Wheeler should have warned users about the dangers of exposure to
asbestos-containing replacement parts in its boilers, two of which
were located in a unit where Logan worked, even if the asbestos-
containing parts were installed after Foster Wheeler sold the
boilers to the refinery. They had argued that the use of the
asbestos-containing parts was foreseeable, but the judge said none
of their evidence proved it.

Evidence presented in Foster Wheeler's interrogatory answers only
established that the company sold some products that contained
asbestos and that it would use asbestos products in its equipment
when a buyer specified, she found.

An attorney for Foster Wheeler declined comment.  Attorneys for
the other parties did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Logan worked as a maintenance supervisor from 1956 to 1986 at a
Getty oil refinery in Delaware, where he oversaw maintenance that
would occur every two to three years. During those "shutdowns,"
workers would turn off, inspect and repair many pieces of
equipment, including two Foster Wheeler boilers that were used as
heat exchangers in the "cat cracker" unit.

Among the jobs done by the workers in those "shutdowns" would be
to open the boilers to repair any leaks and then scrape off and
replace the asbestos rope gaskets that sealed the door, which
created asbestos dust. One of Logan's responsibilities was
handling small parts like gaskets and valves and carrying them to
job sites, according to the opinions.

Pederson estimated that Powell manufactured about 10 percent of
the valves contained in the refinery, but his testimony didn't
name an exact time when Logan would have supervised the
replacement of these valves.

Logan and his wife, Lois Logan, filed their December 2012
complaint against Foster Wheeler, Powell, and a long list of other
industrial defendants, seeking damages as a result of Logan
contracting an asbestos-related disease.

Earlier this year, Judge Eagles granted the defendants' motions
for summary judgment in cases involving Goulds Pumps Inc.,  IMO
Industries Inc., Flowserve US Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal Co. Inc.,
now called Crown Holdings Inc. In August, she denied motions for
summary judgment from Air Products and Chemicals. Inc. as a
successor to Catalytic Inc., The Crane Company, and the Ingersoll-
Rand Co. , but granted a motion from Air Products and Chemicals to
claims brought against the company individually.

The plaintiffs are represented by Janet Ward Black of Ward Black
Law; and Tiffany N. Dickenson and Kevin W. Paul of Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC.

Foster Wheeler is represented by Jennifer M. Techman of Evert
Weathersby Houff.

William Powell is represented by Tara L. Chadbourn and David B.
Oakley of Poole Mahoney PC.

The case is Logan et al v. Air Products and Chemicals Inc. et al,
case number 1:12-cv-01353 in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Governor Pushes EPA to Finish Libby Study
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Montana Gov. Steve Bullock is
pressing federal regulators to wrap up a long-delayed study of
asbestos dangers in a northwestern Montana mining town where
hundreds of people have died from exposure to the hazardous
material.

A draft toxicology study says even an extremely small amount of
asbestos fibers from a now-shuttered W.R. Grace mine in Libby can
cause health problems.

Representatives of W.R. Grace and others in the chemical industry
have sought revisions to those conclusions.

The Missoulian reported Bullock is urging the Environmental
Protection Agency to resist pressure to delay the study.

The Democrat told EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a Nov. 3
letter that the people of Libby have waited 15 years for a final
asbestos cleanup plan.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court to Hear Claim EnPro Hid Fibro Evidence
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle and Sherri Toub, bankruptcy columnists for Bloomberg
News, reported that whether Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
plaintiffs' lawyers, or both are responsible for suppressing
evidence related to asbestos claims against an EnPro Industries
Inc. unit is a question to be decided Dec. 4 at a hearing in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Garlock, the EnPro subsidiary, initiated a Chapter 11
reorganization in June 2010 to deal with asbestos claims. Last
year, the bankruptcy judge held a lengthy trial to estimate the
amount of valid claims.

In January, the case took a turn in favor of Garlock when U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge George R. Hodges found that $125 million was a
"reasonable and reliable estimate" of the total liability to
pending and future mesothelioma claimants. Asbestos claimants
thought the liability should have been 10 times larger.

In his opinion, Hodges ruled that the "impropriety of some law
firms" representing asbestos personal-injury plaintiffs led to
"unfairly inflating recoveries against" Garlock, in part by
withholding evidence that should have been turned over.

In June, the asbestos claimants' lawyers responded with papers
telling the judge he should reopen the trial because Garlock
"committed a fraud on the court." The claimants contended that
Garlock withheld evidence that would have helped their case. The
issue is set for argument in bankruptcy court on Dec. 4.

Garlock said the claimants' lawyers were the truly offending
parties for showing a "startling pattern and practice of evidence
suppression."

Although Garlock admits it inadvertently failed to turn over some
documents, the company said it didn't matter because the
claimants' lawyers already had copies in their files or in the
files of co-parties in prior lawsuits.

The asbestos lawyers, on the other hand, say it was Garlock that
withheld evidence, allowing Hodges to incorporate "false
testimony" into his factual conclusions. The withheld evidence,
according to the claimants, includes experts' reports and e- mails
"undercutting the testimony of Garlock's witnesses about how any
why it settled cases."

Garlock responded, turning the tables and trying to show that
asbestos claimants' lawyers failed to disclose their clients'
claims against other companies or didn't turn over information
known to them although it may not have been known by the creditors
themselves. In sum, Garlock says the claimants want to "relitigate
the estimation trial."

Garlock has lawsuits pending against several law firms alleging
they violated racketeering laws by withholding evidence in prior
asbestos lawsuits. The suits against the firms were transferred
from bankruptcy court to federal district court.

A hearing about who withheld evidence was delayed during parallel
litigation to unseal the trial record, briefs, and evidence. Legal
Newsline had appealed a sealing order and argued successfully that
the estimation trial should have been open to the public.

U.S. District Court Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. in Charlotte reversed
Hodges and said the trial should have been public. The bankruptcy
judge unsealed the evidence and briefs, allowing the hearing to go
ahead on Dec. 4.

The January opinion allowed Garlock to file a Chapter 11 plan
paying creditors in full, including those with asbestos claims.
Full payment allows EnPro to retain ownership. For discussion of
Garlock's revised plan based on the January claim estimation,
click here for the June 2 Bloomberg bankruptcy report.

EnPro makes engineered products, including diesel and natural-gas
engines. It has operations in the U.S. and 10 other countries,
with assets of $1.47 billion and liabilities of $744.3 million on
the June 30 balance sheet. Net income last year was $27 million on
revenue of $1.14 billion. For the first half of this year, net
sales of $600.3 million resulted in net income of $9.6 million.

The Chapter 11 case is In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 10-
bk-31607, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North
Carolina (Charlotte).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Awards $71-Mil. in Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that an Alameda County, Calif., jury has returned a verdict for
$70,861,113 in favor of a former U.S. Navy machinist mate and
nuclear inspector and against defendant John Crane Inc. in an
asbestos personal injury case.

The Oct. 30 verdict was entered following a six-week trial and one
day of deliberations in the Alameda County Superior Court. The
trial began in September with Judge Victoria Kolakowski presiding.

John Crane, a packing and gasket manufacturer, was found three
percent liable for causing the claimant's mesothelioma.

The jury concluded that the defendant was negligent, that its
asbestos-containing products were defective in design and that it
failed to warn the claimant of hazards associated with asbestos
exposure.

The jury assessed $40 million in non-economic damages for claimant
Robert Whalen, $30 million in loss of consortium damages for Linda
Whalen and $861,113 in economic damages.

During the trial, the Whalens presented evidence that the
defendant knew as late as 1970, and should have known decades
earlier, that the asbestos used in the packing and gaskets was
hazardous.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs argued that John Crane never tested
its products for safety or consulted in medical literature
concerning the potential hazards of the products and failed to
sufficiently warn users of the dangers of working with asbestos.

Whalen served in the U.S. Navy aboard nuclear submarines as a
machinist mate and a nuclear inspector from 1964 to 1990. He was
diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2013.

During his time in the service, Whalen worked with asbestos-
containing John Crane packing and gaskets while aboard the Navy
vessels as part of his duties.

Associates Jennifer L. Alesio and Heather-Ann Young joined senior
partner Gilbert L. Purcell of Brayton Purcell LLP in representing
the plaintiffs at trial.

John Crane was represented by Daniel Griffin of O'Connell, Tivin,
Miller & Burns, LLC and Robert Nelder of Hassard Bonnington LLP at
trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipbuilder Earns Summary Judgment in Fibro Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a federal judge in the asbestos multidistrict litigation has
granted summary judgment in favor of Huntington Ingalls, Inc., in
an asbestos case in which the claimant tried to hold a shipbuilder
liable for potentially replaced products.

Judge Eduardo Robreno filed the Sept. 26 opinion in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but it
wasn't filed online until Nov. 3.

The case was transferred to the MDL court in December 2011 form
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Claimant Dale M. Shelly alleges he was exposed to asbestos while
serving in the U.S. Navy from 1964 to 1973 while aboard the USS
Enterprise and the USS Ranger.

He specified that he worked aboard the USS Ranger for about one
year during major work on the ship at some point during his
service and that he worked on the USS Enterprise about five to
seven separate times, for a total of about three to six months.

Huntington Ingalls was named a defendant for building the ships.
It moved for summary judgment, arguing that it cannot be liable on
any product liability claim because a ship is not a "product."

Likewise, Robreno wrote that this court has previously held that a
Navy ship "is not a 'product' for purposes of application of
strict product liability law. As such, a shipbuilder defendant
cannot face liability on a strict product liability claim."

Shelly disagrees, arguing that a Navy ship should be considered a
product.

Huntington Ingalls also argues summary judgment is proper because
the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of exposure.

In Shelly's deposition, he testified that he was exposed to
asbestos from insulation aboard each of the ships at issue and
that the defendant is liable for his injuries. He claims "much" of
the "white, chalky" insulation was original and was occasionally
used on steam pipes.

The plaintiff also provided the testimony of expert Charles Ay in
support of his allegations. Ay opined that approximately 80
percent of the insulation on the ships would have been original
insulation at the time of Shelly's alleged exposure.

In accordance with Shelly's service period, Ay also testified that
he worked aboard the USS Ranger in the early to mid-1970s and the
USS Enterprise in the late 1970s. He added that he saw asbestos-
containing insulation aboard these ships.

Furthermore, Huntington Ingalls argues that the plaintiff did not
provide evidence of a compensable injury and that the plaintiff
does not appear to be injured.

Shelly, on the other hand, argues that although he is still
"somewhat active," he is suffering from "significant injury and
disability" as a result of his alleged asbestos exposure.

Huntington Ingalls also argues that it is immune from liability
based on the government contractor defense.

The defendant claims the Navy exercised discretion and approved
reasonably precise specifications for the products at issue.
Therefore, Huntington Ingalls provided warning labels that
conformed to the Navy's approved warnings while the Navy knew of
the hazards associated with asbestos.

However, Shelly argues that there are genuine issues of material
fact regarding the availability of the government contractor
defense.  He points to military specifications that allegedly
indicate that the Navy "explicitly permitted," and possibly
required, warnings.

Finally, Huntington Ingalls claims it is entitled to summary
judgment on grounds of the sophisticated user defense.

More specifically, the defendant argues that the Navy was a
sophisticated user because it had superior knowledge regarding the
hazards associated with asbestos-containing products and asbestos-
related diseases.

While Huntington Ingalls explained that the Navy was a
sophisticated user, Shelly argues that the defendant "has not
adduced evidence that plaintiff was a 'sophisticated user.'"

Additionally, Shelly argues the defendant "is really arguing for a
'sophisticated intermediary defense,'" which is allegedly not
recognized by maritime law.

Noting that the exposure evidence is vague and spans a period of
several years, Robreno concluded that Shelly did not provide
evidence showing he and Ay were on aboard the Navy vessels at the
same time or even that Ay was on the ships after the plaintiff's
alleged exposure.

"Given this evidence, it is entirely possible that Mr. Ay was
aboard the ship prior to plaintiff's alleged exposure thereon,"
Robreno wrote. "Plaintiff relies solely on Mr. Ay's testimony to
establish that the insulation he was exposed to contained
asbestos."

Robreno added that the court cannot conclude from the evidence
that the asbestos-containing insulation Ay saw aboard the ship was
still the same insulation Shelly was allegedly exposed to. This is
especially true given the fact that Ay testified that roughly 20
percent of the insulation would have been replacement insulation.

"In short, the evidence does not establish that plaintiff was
exposed to respirable asbestos insulation aboard the ship," he
wrote. "As such, no reasonably jury could conclude from the
evidence that [Shelly] was exposed to asbestos aboard this ship
such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his
illness, because any such finding would be based on conjecture."

Therefore, the court held that summary judgment is warranted.

As a result of the court's determination on evidence, Robreno did
not address any of the defendant's other arguments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Appeal Could Aid Defendants in Fibro Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that defending asbestos
claims in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas may become
easier for some defendants if the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sides
with Ford Motor Co. in a recently accepted appeal challenging the
decades-long practice of consolidating multiple cases for trial,
attorneys say.

Defense attorneys say that the Philadelphia court's practice of
grouping as many as three otherwise unrelated asbestos cases into
a single trial was highly prejudicial and that a decision in Rost
v. Ford Motor Co. uncoupling the cases would help ensure that
companies had the chance to adequately defend themselves.

"They're going to have a much better chance at defending these
cases if a jury is just listening to their defense," Rawle &
Henderson LLP partner Carl Buchholz said. "I think a jury will be
able to evaluate the evidence much better."

The Supreme Court announced that it would consider the question,
as phrased by Ford, of "whether the Philadelphia County 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."

The case is on appeal after a Philadelphia jury returned a $1
million verdict against Ford following a 2011 trial. A three-judge
Superior Court panel affirmed the verdict in May.

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin PC partner John Hare
says that forcing multiple defendants to face claims in multiple
cases makes it easy for their arguments to get lost in the
shuffle.

"It's extremely prejudicial for the defendants because they all
get lumped together and the juries and trial judges can't keep the
different cases straight," he said. "It becomes sort of a flurry
of witnesses and evidence, and the jury has no way to keep the
cases separate. The defendants feel their individual arguments get
lost in the midst of the noise."

The Philadelphia court has traditionally served as a hub of
asbestos-related litigation, and consolidation of cases has been
allowed over the years to help deal with a massive backlog of
claims and to help conserve judicial resources.

Plaintiffs attorneys say that without consolidation, asbestos
victims are the ones who are prejudiced because of long delays in
getting to trial.

"While the total number of asbestos cases is down in Philadelphia
County, there's still an enormous number of filings," said
Lawrence Cohan, an attorney with Anapol Schwartz, noting that
between 30 or 40 asbestos trials are scheduled per month in the
court. "Without the ability to consolidate, a judge would never be
able to reach them all. There would be enormous prejudice to dying
victims who would not get their day in court."

But despite the number of outstanding claims, Buchholz says, there
is no excuse for denying defendants their right to a fair trial.

"Whether you have a million cases or a hundred cases, as a matter
of fairness or prejudice it shouldn't be the deciding factor in
allowing decades of these consolidated trials," he said.

Although the court had allowed as many as 10 separate cases to be
consolidated for trial before a single jury, an administrative
judge issued an order in February 2012 limiting the number to
three. In addition, the order required that consolidated cases all
deal with the same disease, the same body of law and come from the
same plaintiffs law firm.

According to court records, there are about 650 asbestos cases
pending as part of a mass tort program in Philadelphia's Complex
Litigation Center.

Despite the procedural changes in 2012, Ford has argued that the
consolidation violates not only principles of due process but also
the letter of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, the
company pointed to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 213
allowing consolidation as a matter of discretion in cases "which
involve a common question of law or fact."

While consolidated cases in Philadelphia involve the same disease,
Hare says that's where the similarities typically end.

"They consolidate cases involving completely separate plaintiffs,
completely separate products, completely separate exposures," he
said. "There is nothing similar about the cases at all except
that, at different times and different places, they were exposed
to different products containing asbestos."

The claims against Ford stem from plaintiff Richard Rost's
exposure to asbestos-containing brakes during several months he
spent working at a car dealership in 1950 after graduating from
high school. According to court records, the suit included claims
against several other defendants that each settled with Rost prior
to trial.

Rost's claims against Ford were consolidated alongside two other
asbestos-related cases, one of which, Graver v. Foster Wheeler
Corp., saw a defendant arguing that a plaintiff's exposure to
asbestos at a power plant had not led to his development of
mesothelioma.

Ford, however, argued in its case that Rost's exposure to asbestos
at a similar power plant had substantially contributed to his
mesothelioma.

Further complicating the situation, Ford said, was the fact that
the third case in the group involved claims that brakes
manufactured by Sears Roebuck & Co. had caused mesothelioma in
plaintiff William Wasekanes.

Although Ford challenged the consolidation of the cases when the
case was on appeal before the Superior Court, the panel said that
a 1982 decision by the Supreme Court in Pittsburgh Corning Corp.
v. Bradley recognized that consolidation was needed to deal with
the backlog of asbestos claims.

"We observe that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has in the past
determined that the problem presented by the volume of asbestos
litigation in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County is
critical in nature," the opinion said. "In the absence of contrary
authority from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, we conclude that
under the Bradley decision, we do not have authority to address
procedural issues such as this absent a claim of violation of
constitutional rights."

Hare, however, says that the volume of asbestos litigation had
dropped significantly in the last 10 to 20 years.

"Philadelphia has been a real hotbed for this litigation. You
certainly have cases here, but the volume isn't what it used to
be," he said. "There's definitely been improvement in the
efficiency of handling these cases in Philadelphia, so the need
for consolidation is gone, especially in light of its prejudice."

But Weitz & Luxenberg PC attorney Robert Silverman said asbestos
trials are typically held, at the earliest, two years after the
filing of a claim.

"We have clients with mesothelioma who are dying. They're the
innocent victims," he said. "If they have a valid case, they
should be able to go to court and prove it. This would only
postpone the client or the family's right to compensation."

And Kline & Specter PC attorney Lee Balefsky said juries are
perfectly capable of compartmentalizing the facts presented in
each of the consolidated cases.

"Juries are smart. Juries can differentiate between plaintiffs and
legal theories," he said. "I've tried a number of consolidated
asbestos cases over the years, and we've found that if juries are
given individual booklets on each plaintiff which explains each
plaintiff's background and history, they're very easily able to
differentiate. I've yet to see a case when I think the defendants
have been prejudiced by a consolidated trial."

Both Balefsky and Silverman said they were aware of multiple cases
where juries in consolidated cases had returned verdicts in favor
of plaintiffs in one case and defendants in another.

"I've tried cases with multiple plaintiffs and would win some of
those and lose some of those," Silverman said. "I've won four and
lost two in the same trial. I don't think they just give everybody
money because they're in the same case."

Silverman said that forcing experts to appear at multiple trials
instead of at consolidated trials would significantly drive up the
costs of litigation on both sides.

"A lot of these issues are the same. How mesothelioma is caused is
the same. What causes mesothelioma is the same, how much causes
it, the different types of asbestos fibers. Those experts will
give the same testimony that applies to these multiple
plaintiffs," Silverman said. "If we had to do that on every single
case, it's an added expense to our clients. The defendants have
the same issue. They have the same witnesses."

An attorney for Ford declined to comment on the case. An attorney
for Rost, meanwhile, did not respond to a message from a reporter.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Paul of Paul Reich &
Myers PC, Christian Hartley of Hartley Law LLC, and Clayton
Thompson of Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd.

Ford is represented by Robert Byer and Sharon Caffrey of Duane
Morris LLP.

The case is Richard Rost et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 56
EAP 2015, before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $3.8MM Judgment in Survival Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that appealing a $3.8 million judgment, a defendant named in a
Louisiana asbestos case unsuccessfully argued the lower court
erred by considering the surviving plaintiffs' own pain and
suffering in a survival action.

Judge Ernest Drake delivered the Nov. 10 opinion for the majority
in Louisiana's First Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the lower
court's $3.8 million judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Judges
Michael Guidry and Jewel E. Welch concurred. Judge William J.
Crain filed a separate concurring opinion.

Judge Randolph H. Parro dissented, concluding that the damages
award was excessive given the time period and severity of the
decedent's pain and suffering.

"I respectfully disagree with the affirmance of the trial court's
award of $3.8 million in survival damages in this case, which I
believe was an abuse of discretion given the factual circumstances
of Mr. White's illness," Parro stated.

Plaintiffs Dorothy Carter White, Lucy White, Tommy Lloyd White,
Jr., Frederick White and William White filed the survival action
for decedent Tommy Lloyd White, Sr., in East Baton Rouge Court
against several defendants.

White worked as an operator for defendant Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana, LLC, also known as the Louisiana Station, from 1955
until 1974.

As part of his work, the decedent was required to ensure that the
equipment was running correctly by performing minor maintenance
work in machinery including boilers, turbines and support pumps,
where he was allegedly exposed to asbestos.  As a result of his
work, White developed mesothelioma in July 2011 and died in August
2011.

Prior to trial, the plaintiffs stipulated that the case would only
proceed against Entergy as a survival action.  After a two-day
bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs
on June 27, 2013, and awarded general damages of $3.8 million. The
district court offered no written reasons for the ruling but spoke
briefly on the topic orally. Entergy appealed.

On appeal, Entergy argues that the district court erred when it
based the damages award on injuries that are not compensable in
survival actions.  Because the plaintiffs did not provide a
wrongful death claim for their own anguish and distress due to the
decedent's death, the district court erred when it considered
evidence beyond the scope of the survival claim and used the
evidence to support the award, the defendant argued.

"The survival claim in this matter is particularly heartfelt by
the adult children and through their testimony, the pain of their
mother who have been married all of her life to Mr. White," the
district judge said in support of the verdict.

Entergy argues that the district court's statement demonstrates
the error of the lower court, revealing that the court based the
survival damages on the plaintiffs' anguish and distress -- rather
than the decedent's anguish -- which are not compensable in a
survival action.

The appeals court concluded that all of the evidence and testimony
presented at trial focused solely on the decedent's pain and
suffering as a result of his asbestos-related injury.

"Although the court made 'kind statements' from the bench
regarding the heartfelt nature of the case and plaintiffs' pain in
losing her husband and father, there is no indication that the
district court was attempting to compensate the plaintiffs for
their own injuries, suffered as a result of Mr. White's death.
This assignment of error is without merit," Drake wrote.

Furthermore, Entergy also argues that the damage award is an abuse
of the courts discretion, because survival actions only permit
recovery for damages suffered by White from the time of the injury
to the moment of death, which was less than six weeks in this
case.

Prior to his diagnosis, the decedent had a physically active life.
Then during the final weeks of his life, Entergy argues that he
was surrounded by his family, was provided with 24-hour care,
reported to his caregivers that he was pain free and slipped into
a coma several days before his death. He also allegedly told his
wife that he was not afraid of dying, meaning his pain and
suffering could not have been extensive enough to warrant a $3.8
million judgment.

However, the appeals court found the record reflects the decedent
suffered from asbestos-related problems including chest pain,
shortness of breath, fatigue, coughing and other breathing
problems as early as 2005, and the symptoms worsened as time
progressed.

White's primary care physician Dr. Stephen Speer testified at the
trial that the decedent was "miserable" at the time of his death.
He said White was "starving for breath" from a lack of oxygen in
his body despite being on an oxygen machine, among other worsening
symptoms.

"While the award is arguably on the high end of the general damage
spectrum, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its
vast discretion. Accordingly, Entergy's assignment of error in
this regard lacks merit," Drake wrote.

In Crain's concurring opinion, he admitted that he would not have
awarded $3.8 million in damages in this case. However, it is the
role of the appellate court to review the trier of fact's exercise
of its vast discretion when awarding damages.

"Despite my belief that the damage award in this case is too high,
when reviewed under the controlling standard of appellate review,
I cannot conclude that the trier of fact's award for the
particular injury and its effect under the particular
circumstances on the particular plaintiff is a clear abuse of the
trier of fact's vast discretion," Crain concluded.

In Parro's dissent, he compared the damages in this case to awards
in other mesothelioma and asbestos-related cases for guidance on
an appropriate award.  He found that while two previous cases
awarded survival damages for $3 million and $5 million, the
plaintiffs in those cases suffered for longer periods of time from
"severe, debilitating physical pain as well as mental suffering."

"Based on the above comparisons, I believe the highest reasonable
amount that the trial court could have awarded is $2.8 million.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent," Parro concluded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge to Open Files on Garlock Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that a long-secret
trove of court filings that bankrupt gasket maker Garlock Sealing
Technologies says illustrate a pattern of fraud in asbestos
litigation is expected to be opened to public view.

The files, Garlock says, will show how plaintiff lawyers withheld
evidence their clients were exposed to multiple asbestos products
in order to extract higher settlements and court verdicts from
Garlock. In one case that generated a $37 million verdict in
California, Garlock says, a lawyer with prominent Dallas asbestos
firm Waters & Kraus flatly denied exposure to dangerous insulation
that his client had already admitted, under penalty of perjury, in
another proceeding.

The records in racketeering lawsuits Garlock filed against several
asbestos law firms are to be unsealed after a fierce battle by
plaintiff lawyers to keep them secret. In January, U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge George Hodges in Charlotte, North Carolina slashed Garlock's
estimated liability for asbestos exposure from $1.4 billion to
$125 million after determining that the higher estimates were
based upon court cases "infected by the manipulation of exposure
evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers." In a pattern long known
to defense attorneys, plaintiff lawyers coach their clients to
"remember" working with only products made by the company they are
suing, then file claims with bankruptcy trusts alleging other
exposures.

Plaintiff lawyers argued unsealing the records would violate the
privacy rights of their clients, even though they largely consist
of public court filings. Hodges initially went along with them,
and even sealed part of Garlock's bankruptcy proceedings from the
public. But a federal judge sided with Legal Newsline on its First
Amendment challenge and ordered the files opened in July.

Hodges agreed to open the entire record in October, in a move that
could help other manufacturers and insurance companies including
Ford, VW and Aetna as they try to recover money they've paid out
to plaintiffs who made duplicative and often conflicting claims
about their asbestos exposure. As early as December, the public
will have access to records covering more than 100,000 people who
filed claims against Garlock as well as hundreds of thousands more
who filed claims against nearly every trust set up to process
claims against companies forced into bankruptcy over asbestos.

Those files are being redacted now to remove confidential
information, although they will retain the last four digits of the
claimants' Social Security numbers so claims can be quickly
matched up to uncover evidence of double-dipping and conflicting
claims. It was just such a matching exercise that allowed a
federal judge in Texas to uncover a large-scale fraud in 2006 by
plaintiff lawyers who tried to recycle their asbestos clients with
new claims of silicosis, even though the two diseases almost never
occur in the same human being.

In a filing contesting plaintiff lawyers' attempt to reopen the
bankruptcy case, Garlock offered a preview of what the public will
be able to see. According to that filing, lawyers at Waters &
Kraus won a $36.7 million jury verdict in 2004 after Navy veteran
Robert Treggett testified that he was exposed to the asbestos in
Garlock gaskets, but not the asbestos in Unibestos pipe
insulation, which experts say is a hundreds of times more potent
cause of mesothelioma.

His attorney, Ron C. Eddins, also told the jury it was "not true"
that Unibestos was on Treggett's ship, even though his firm had
helped his client file a bankruptcy claim under penalty of perjury
saying he'd been exposed to Unibestos. That verdict induced
Garlock to enter an agreement to settle claims with Waters & Kraus
under an annual "cap" of payouts and was among the verdicts
plaintiff lawyers cited in their claim that Garlock owed more than
$1 billion in bankruptcy. Garlock says it could have won the suit,
or been assessed with much less liability, if it had known about
the Unibestos evidence.

Waters & Kraus declined comment. Eddins died in a January 2012
crash of his Porsche Panamera that also took the lives of a
University of Texas student and her boyfriend. His estate was
sued, ironically enough, by lawyers at Williams Kherker, another
asbestos law firm named in the Garlock documents.

Garlock was a bit player in the asbestos drama until many other
manufacturers were driven into bankruptcy. Then lawyers focused on
the company and began making ever-larger demands for payment.

"Garlock was getting named in 80%-plus of the mesothelioma
claims," said Garland S. Cassada, who's representing Garlock. "By
the end of the day were on everybody's word processor."

Garlock filed for bankruptcy in 2010, but refused to play by the
asbestos bar's rules, conducting aggressive discovery and
eventually convincing Hodges to look into evidence of conflicting
claims and fraud. This exchange illustrates what frequently went
on in court:

Q. The last attorney asked you a few questions about brands of
insulation, and I just want to throw out a few more. Do you
remember seeing any Armstrong pipe insulation at the Devil's River
plant?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember seeing Armstrong block insulation?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Do you remember seeing any Unibestos pipe insulation at
any of the plants?

A. No.

Q. How about Quigley?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now I'm going to move on to the cement. Did you see any
Harbison Walker asbestos cement at any facilities?

A. No.

Q. That name doesn't ring a bell?

A. No.

Q. Okay. How about Quigley cement?

A. No.

Q. The last one I have is Celotex?

A. No.

Q. That doesn't ring a bell?

A. No.

The plaintiff in this case later filed claims with the Armstrong
and Harbison Walker trusts, as well as the Pittsburgh Corning
bankruptcy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Scaffolder Dies From Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lancashire Telegraph reported that an ex-scaffolder who worked at
two well-known power stations in East Lancashire, England, died as
a result of exposure to absestos, an inquest heard.

Martin Carlin, 59, worked inside both Padiham and Huncoat power
stations while insulation was being ripped out of the buildings,
Burnley Coroner's Court was told.

In a statement filed before his death, Mr Carlin said he worked
for Kirk's at the two facilities, erecting scaffolding so laggers
could strip pipework at the power stations.  He recalled how the
scaffolding would often become covered in asbestos dust and
fibres, the inquest heard.

Mr Carlin, of Stainton Drive, Burnley, died at Pendleside Hospice
on August 15 and a post-mortem examination by Dr Mohammed Aslam
gave the cause of death as malignant mesothelioma, a cancer
commonly associated with asbestos exposure.

East Lancashire coroner Richard Taylor said that he had received a
letter from Mr Carlin's solicitors confirming that a successful
claim for compensation had been lodged before his death.

Mr Taylor added: "These factors, and the medical evidence, along
with the cause of death, leave me no option but to return a
conclusion of industrial disease."

The power station at Padiham, now the site of Shuttleworth Mead
business park, closed in 1993 and the Huncoat facility in 1984.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Environmental Violators Go to Jail in Crackdown
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that a
Detroit man's 27-month prison term for Clean Air Act violations
reflects growing worry among federal agencies that the state's
economic recovery may lead to more environmental crimes.

Ironically, that's because the improved economy is spurring more
projects involving demolition of old structures and redevelopment
of contaminated industrial sites.  That means more chances for
unscrupulous property owners, demolition companies and asbestos
abatement contractors to commit crimes that threaten public and
worker health, officials say.

"There's a right way to do it, and it's also the more expensive
way," she said."Our concern, especially with all these old
buildings in Detroit, is that people will take a shortcut," said
Jennifer Gorland, an assistant U.S. attorney in Detroit. "We hope
that's not true, but there's always that temptation.

Gorland prosecuted Terry Williams, who pled guilty to mishandling
material containing asbestos and ozone-depleting refrigerant while
dismantling the former American Motors Corp. headquarters and
Chrysler Jeep plant on Plymouth Road in Detroit. He owned the
building.

Elsewhere in Michigan, two men are awaiting a federal court trial
for the alleged mishandling of asbestos in a demolition and
renovation project that converted a former Bay City church to a
charter school. Her office is prosecuting that case as well. Roy
Bradley Sr. and Gerald Essex have pled not guilty to the charges.

Last year, Anthony Davis was sentenced to 12 months in prison for
improperly removing and disposing of asbestos at a former paper
mill he bought in Otsego, Allegan County. Davis also was ordered
to pay $168,030 in restitution.

Also last year, a judge sentenced David Taylor to a year on
probation for tearing out siding and insulation that contained
asbestos at a fire-damaged apartment building he owned in Lansing.
"Rather than pay for a trained and professional expert, Taylor
decided to do the work himself with two people he hired to help,"
according to the felony charge.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Criminal Investigation
Division is handling an all-time high of about 30 active asbestos
investigations across the state, said resident-agent-in-charge
Carol Paszkiewicz. They represent about 40 percent of her office's
caseload.

Several major factors contribute to the rising caseload, according
to Paszkiewicz and EPA Special Agent Mike Pemberton. Among them
are the large number of vacant auto plants and other manufacturing
facilities, high prices for scrap metal and failure of property
owners to verify if the contractors they hire are licensed and
reputable.

Violators include speculators who buy buildings cheaply, strip
them of metal -- including the I-beams that hold them up -- and
then abandon them.

"A lot of these buildings are purchased in county auction,
scrapped within the first year, never pay property taxes and they
walk away," Pemberton said. A speculator may pay $10,000 for a
building, he said, and clear $100,000 from selling the scrap
metal.

Other violators are shady contractors and abatement firms -- often
unlicensed -- that submit lowball bids and victimize the owners
while violating the law.

Paszkiewicz and Pemberton said they are developing more cases
because of improved cooperation between EPA, the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality and the Michigan Occupational
Safety and Health Administration.

In addition, U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade has made "urban
environmental crimes" a priority of her office, they said,
providing enough resources to prosecute such cases.

DEQ communications director Brad Wurfel said, "A robust economy
brings resources to address environmental challenges, from
permitting to enforcement to restoration and cleanups," and the
department is "far from 'worried,' but certainly busy across the
board.

"Enforcement has ramped up to meet the need, and we see a
rebounding Michigan economy as a very good thing," Wurfel said.

The problem isn't limited to Michigan.

In October a federal grand jury in Ohio accused two men of
violating the Clean Air Act by failing to remove asbestos from an
empty factory they were demolishing in Cleveland.

"Asbestos is like bread and butter for us," said Brad Beeson, a
special assistant U.S. attorney prosecuting the Ohio case. "A lot
of it was used, and there are a lot of abandoned buildings.

"You can save yourself a lot of money if you take down the
building without removing the asbestos first," Beeson said.

In the Detroit case that Gorland handled, Williams hired workers
to remove and dismantle 50 to 70 air conditioning units. During
the process they released R-22, a refrigerant that depletes ozone.

"Williams directed his employees to remove and `scrap' the metal
from the air conditioning units and pipes without taking
precautions to prevent the release of ozone-depleting refrigerant
gasses," the prosecution sentencing memo said.

His crews also cut and removed pipes insulated with asbestos,
which scientists have linked to lung cancer, mesothelioma,
asbestosis and nonmalignant lung diseases, without a federal
permit and without following EPA regulations.

The EPA's Paszkiewicz and Pemberton said Williams falsely told
people that he planned to convert the site to a home for autistic
children. However, his actions conflicted with that purported
purpose because he stripped the building's fixtures and charged
other contractors to illegally dump construction debris, soil and
other untested material on the 40-acre site.

Gorland said authorities were tipped by worried employees and by a
scrapyard operator who saw asbestos-containing material on metal
that Williams tried to sell.

"Williams committed these Clean Air violations in an effort to
avoid the more costly cleanup and demolition required under
federal law," the prosecution memo said. "Williams chose profit
over the legal requirements and put the health of his workers and
the environment at risk."

After Williams pled guilty, U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland
sentenced him to 27 months in prison. He faced up to five years in
prison.

Williams will serve that sentence after completing a current state
prison term of two to 15 years for failure to return a rented
forklift worth more than $20,000, Gorland said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WorkSafety Watchdog Rejects Union's Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Raggatt, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
work safety watchdog in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has
rejected concerns from the construction union about the quality of
Canberra asbestos removalists, as millions are set to be spent on
the clean-up and demolition of Mr Fluffy homes.

Work Safety Commissioner Mark McCabe said he had confidence in the
industry now in place and inspectors would be closely watching new
removalists in Canberra who were successful in tendering for the
work.  He dismissed the threat of a possible pink batts-style
safety failure, saying the rollout would be much different to the
rushed 2009 national home insulation program.

A royal commission report found the deaths of three Queensland men
and a NSW tradesman would not have occurred if the program had
been properly designed and implemented.

"My belief is we have a competent group of removalists at the
moment, there have been issues from time to time, but it's not
like there's some widespread deficiency in the skill set," Mr
McCabe said.

"It won't be like the pink batts [home insulation rollout] work,
because pretty much everyone can do that work, where the drive was
to get the money out the door for economic stimulus.

"The stress here is to get the money to owners, not removalists."
CFMEU ACT branch secretary Dean Hall said it was critical the ACT
government scrutinised applicants and spent what was needed to
ensure the highest standard of removalist work.

"Everyone in the industry knows that there are some very
problematic individuals and companies in the industry," Mr Hall
said.

"If it goes to an aggressive competitive tender process it's going
to serve the cowboys."

Mr Hall said he was aware of removalists on a number of sites in
recent years who had been seen, and in at least one case
photographed, in asbestos-related exclusion zones without wearing
the correct respiratory gear.  He also raised concerns about the
alleged failure of some removalists to decontaminate before eating
or having a cigarette.

Mr McCabe said WorkSafe had taken action in relation to a 2012
incident captured in CFMEU photographs, but there were only a
small number of cases where removalists were proven to have the
done the wrong thing.  He said recently announced restrictions and
direct oversight of removalists by WorkSafe would ensure wider
scrutiny.

Fyshwick asbestos assessor Peter Hengst said he had found no
problems with ACT removalists and did not know of any local
"cowboys".

"Because I'm an assessor I often do inspections for other
companies, and I find their standards pretty good," Mr Hengst
said.

Now working for Ozbestos, he began as an asbestos removalist in
1985 and became an assessor in 2007.  He said he welcomed moves to
strengthen Worksafe oversight, after now-stark Fluffy memories
from his past days as an electrician.  "I remember crawling
through roofs thinking this [stuff] is brilliant, it's not itchy."

There were 70 Class A asbestos removalist licences, the only ACT
licence which allows the removal of friable asbestos, including
that used as loose-fill insulation, but Mr McCabe said the number
of removalists who operated in Canberra was "barely in the double
figures".

He said he would be surprised if there were 20-30 used across the
clean-up and demolition of the 1021 Mr Fluffy homes across the
next five years.

"We'll have a very close look at anyone we're not familiar with,"
he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 'Mindless" Dumping of Fibro at Limerick Pier
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Prendiville, writing for Limerick Leader, reported that the
dumping of asbestos sheeting at Glin Pier, in Ireland, has been
described as "mindless blackguardism" by local councillor John
Sheahan.  And he was angry that anyone would do such a thing given
the risks associated with asbestos. "We all know what asbestos can
do," he said. "The worst thing you can do to asbestos is disturb
it."

He was also angry that the dumping took place at a local beauty
spot frequented by lots of local walkers and where the Glin
Development Association and Limerick City and County Council had
carried out a lot of improvements. "A lot of public money was
spent here," he said. "It was mindless blackguardism and thuggery
to dump there."

Approximately one tonne of corrugated asbestos sheeting was dumped
behind the pier wall, close to the Knockaranna walking path over
Hallowe'en. The asbestos was dumped in the middle of the night and
was spotted the following morning by a resident on his morning
walk with his dog.

He then contacted the chairman of Glin Development Association
John Anthony Culhane who immediately alerted the council.

"Fair play to them. They were very fast and efficient," Mr Culhane
said.

Within hours, the asbestos had been covered over and the area
cordoned off. Men dressed in special protective clothing and with
face masks arrived to remove the material. The asbestos was
wrapped and taped and brought under licence to a depot up the
country from where it will eventually be exported to a special
site in Europe.

Unfortunately, Mr Culhane said, nobody knows who did it.

A spokeswoman for Limerick City and County Council said the
council was investigating the matter.

"No public health issues have arisen due to the prompt securing of
the asbestos and the prevailing weather conditions," she said.
However, she added, the council was anxious to hear from anyone
who might have information about the incident. Anybody who does
can contact the council or any councillor in confidence or
anonymously.

Illegal dumping of asbestos carries a penalty, on conviction, of a
fine of up to EUR4000 and/or a prison sentence of six months.

The cost of the disposal operation has not been revealed but is
likely to run into thousands of euro, given the legal obligation
to bring in specialist disposal experts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Call for Help on Corsham Fibro by Ill Worker
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gazette & Herald reported that former tunnel worker for the MoD in
Corsham, England, who has been diagnosed with an asbestos related
cancer, is seeking colleagues who he worked with.

Tony Knott, 83, worked in the underground Corsham Tunnels at
Hartham, Spring Quarry and Monks Park for 21 years.  He wants to
hear from anybody who may have worked in these tunnels with him
who could provide information about the presence and use of
asbestos.

Mr Knott was diagnosed with mesothelioma in September which is a
cancer of the lining of the lung and is thought to be linked to
past asbestos exposure.

Mr Knott and his wife June moved to Neston in 1975. He began
working at the Sonar Test area before moving to the Hartham area
and ended up in the Spring Quarry until the site closed in 1994.

Mr Knott said: "The tunnels were vast with miles of asbestos-
lagged pipework. I remember seeing carpenters in the roadways
cutting up asbestos insulation board. The many electric trucks
using these roads blew the asbestos dust and fibres around the
tunnels.

"I spent a long time on fire patrol, walking through the tunnels
daily. I noticed broken silver wrapping on the pipework where dry
powder asbestos dust spilled out into the atmosphere."

The family has instructed Specialist Asbestos Disease Solicitors
at Novum Law. If anyone can help in any way then please contact
solicitor Helen Grady on 0800 884 0555.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Seeks to Block Rehash of Damages Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal,
reported that Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC and related
companies are objecting to a request from the plaintiffs who
developed mesothelioma from their products to reopen a judge's
estimation of how much they are owed for their injuries.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges of the Western District of
North Carolina estimated in January that Garlock owes $125 million
to plaintiffs. He based his decision to reject the plaintiffs'
argument that Garlock's liability is around $1 billion to $1.3
billion because of records indicating that plaintiffs attorneys
had misrepresented the value of 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.

For example, Garlock said, plaintiffs lawyers suppressed evidence
that their clients, who won a $9 million verdict against Garlock,
had been exposed to Unibestos made by Pittsburgh Corning on the
U.S.S. John Marshall submarine.

The official committee of asbestos and personal injury claimants
argued, however, that Garlock's counsel had documents and
transcripts indicating that Unibestos was present on the submarine
and that Garlock's counsel failed to that produce information
during the estimation proceedings.

In Garlock's latest court filing, the company's counsel argues
that much of the evidence couldn't have been hidden because it was
in the possession of the committee's consultant who attended the
trial and the committee's trial counsel, Waters & Kraus.

Garlock said it has proposed a reorganization plan setting aside a
$275 million fund available to pay asbestos claimants -- more than
double Hodges' estimate of the defendants' liability.

Garlock's opposition was filed by Garland Cassada, Jonathan Krisko
and Richard Worf Jr. of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson in Charlotte,
N.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Families of University Workers Win Cancer Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anuji Varma, writing for Birmingham Mail, reported that former
workers at Aston University, in England, has awarded compensation
to the families of two former workers who died after contracting
asbestos-related cancer.

Valerie White and Robert Burns both worked in the Biological
Sciences department at the university in the 1960s, 70s and 80s
where the pipes in the basement were lagged with the killer dust.

Asbestos insulation boards were cut up on site whilst Mr Burns,
who died aged 75, was present.

The dad-of-two worked as a research laboratory technician and had
relocated to Cockermouth, in Cumbria, where he died in September
2010 from Mesothelioma, a cancer in the lining of the lung caused
by exposure to asbestos.

Mrs White, a former secretary from Wylde Green, Sutton Coldfield,
also contracted the disease and died in October, 2009, aged just
52.

Both victims' families launched legal action through Birmingham-
based solicitors Irwin Mitchell, who secured an undisclosed
payout.

Mrs White's widower Christopher, 61, said: "Valerie's illness came
as such as shock to us and it was heart breaking to see her in
pain and watch her strength slowly deteriorate at such a young
age, knowing that ultimately there was no cure to the disease.

"Since Valerie died we have been determined to secure justice for
her death and we are relieved that our legal team's persistence
paid off having now secured a settlement from Aston University.

"We hope that this will act as a reminder to employers to protect
their workers from exposure to asbestos, so other families do not
have to watch their loved ones endure so much pain and suffering."

Jane was married to Robert for 42 years and met him when they both
worked in the Biological Sciences department at Aston University.
She said: "It was devastating to watch my husband go through so
much pain in the final years of his life.

"The fact that he became so ill just from going to work every day
is still hard to accept. I am at a complete loss since the death
of my soul-mate, which has left a void in my life that has not
eased with the passing of time.

"The last four years since Bob's death have been a terrible ordeal
and I am very glad that the case is now over and the university
have had to pay for the suffering they caused, although no amount
of money can make up for Bob's suffering or my loss.

"Our daughters and grandchildren miss him as I do and he will
never be replaced in their hearts or mine."

An Aston University spokesman said: "We are pleased that a
settlement has now been reached on these two cases, which relate
to an earlier chapter in the history of the university."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: OSHA Fines Stamford for Fibro at Police HQ
-----------------------------------------------------------
Martin B. Cassidy, writing for Stamford Advocate, reported that
after multiple visits to investigate the asbestos threat and water
contamination at the Stamford, Connecticut, police headquarters,
OSHA has fined the city for failing to protect workers from
asbestos or screen them for exposure to it.

The order requires Stamford to clean up asbestos waste and debris
exposed in the building by March 2015, putting a deadline on the
city to decide whether it will solve the larger problem with the
police station by building a new police headquarters or trying to
repair and upgrade the existing station.

"Personally, I feel we are throwing good money after bad to fix
it," Stamford Police Chief Jonathan Fontneau said. "We outgrew the
police building many years ago and I don't know how many millions
it will cost to fix what's wrong with a building that is already
antiquated to serve as a modern police department. It would be
like putting a Band-Aid on a broken bone."

The 65-year-old Bedford Street headquarters has multiple other
problems in addition to the asbestos. The water is contaminated
with lead and isn't safe for drinking or showering. The
ventilation system can't be used because it would distribute the
asbestos particles further, the force and its technological needs
have outgrown the space, and the jail cells are not constructed to
modern standards that include suicide-prevention measures.

OSHA and city officials have said that air quality testing in the
building by OSHA and an industrial hygienist found the air quality
in the building remains safe for occupancy at this time.

In a 12-page report issued on Oct. 28, OSHA fined the city $2,720
for five violations of federal safety procedures for handling
asbestos, including not informing housekeepers and contractors in
the building about potential health risks of the presence of
asbestos and not removing asbestos-containing materials in a
manner to contain its spread.

The report included a $560 fine for not doing a required analysis
to determine whether asbestos was present and likely to be
disturbed and could be disturbed by contract work. Such an
asbestos analysis is required on buildings built before 1980,
under federal regulations.

The city was fined another $560 for not containing the spread of
the asbestos dust and waste, and was ordered to clean up the
material by next March.

The police union president said that although the health threat is
worrying, and that a new building is really what's needed, the
officers understand that it will come at a heavy cost.

"I'll leave it up to city officials to come up with the best
solution to either do the abatement process or find another
suitable building for the police department," Stamford Police
Association union President Todd Lobraico said.

The union is concerned about the safety of its members, and
expects the city to start doing health screenings on officers.

Mayor David Martin and city officials are still reviewing the OSHA
citations, Martin's chief of staff Michael Pollard said, and
arranging an informal conference with OSHA officials to help the
city understand the scope of what needs to be done. The city has
15 days from the date of the report to request a conference with
OSHA to discuss or dispute any of the stipulations, including the
deadlines to remediate problems.

"The fines are not paramount in our mind, but fully comprehending
what the remediation requirements is," Pollard said.

Pollard said temporary relocation was just a matter of time.

Kenneth Tucker, director of the state Labor Department's
Connecticut Occupational Safety and Health Division, said the need
for relocation depends on how big an area of the building needs to
be cleaned up.

The asbestos was discovered by a contractor conducting a
mechanical upgrade of the building's heating and cooling system in
March, raising concerns about potential air quality hazards to
police.

OSHA is still investigating the problem of lead in the water at
the police headquarters, and is expected to issue a determination
on how that should be resolved soon.

Beyond the air and water quality issues, the police department has
outgrown the building on Bedford Street and needs a larger modern
day facility, Fontneau said.

Fontneau has requested up to $45 million from the city to pay for
a possible relocation, including $30 million to purchase a
building, and $15 million to install communications, a jail and
other amenities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Six-Figure Settlement for Meso Victim's Family
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Nichol, writing for ChronicleLive, reported that the family
of an engineer who died from an asbestos-related disease has been
awarded a six-figure settlement from his former employers.

Peter McCormack passed away in December 2013, aged 73, after an
18-month battle with mesothelioma, a cancer in the lining of the
lungs caused by exposure to asbestos dust.

Devastated by his diagnosis, Mr McCormack, of Whickham, instructed
specialist industrial disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to
investigate whether more could have been done to protect him and
prevent his exposure to asbestos throughout his working life.

After his death, Mr McCormack's daughter, Elke, took over her
father's case on behalf of her and her sister, Natalie.

Now, asbestos experts at Irwin Mitchell's Newcastle office have
secured an undisclosed six-figure settlement for Elke from her
father's previous employers - energy supplier EON UK PLC, where he
worked from 1957 to 1962, and OSG Ship Management, where he was
employed between 1965 and 1997.

Mr McCormack, an apprentice and mechanical fitter during his time
with EON, regularly carried out repairs to asbestos-lagged boilers
and pipework during his employment, where he would work alongside
laggers, who mixed and applied asbestos lagging to new pipes and
fittings.

During his time at and OSG Ship Management, which was previously
known as W A Souter Limited, Souter Hamlet Limited and Souter
Shipping Limited, he was again exposed to substantial quantities
of asbestos dust in his role as an engineer onboard ships at sea.

His role involved repairing pipes and other equipment lagged with
asbestos, which he would strip by hand. Asbestos dust was also
prevalent on internal surfaces of the ship and was often disturbed
and released into the air.

Elke, 41, said: "It was heartbreaking to see my dad suffering with
mesothelioma for 18 months and the effect the chemotherapy he
underwent had on him.

"He lost all his appetite, was often exhausted, and was suffering
with nerve pain in his shoulder.

"My dad was always an extremely active man, spending his time
mountaineering, walking and cycling, but after his diagnosis his
health deteriorated rapidly and was unable to do the things he
enjoyed so much.

"The diagnosis also caused him severe distress and anxiety for his
future.

"Hopefully, this settlement will highlight to employers the need
to protect people from exposure to asbestos, so other families do
not have to watch their loved ones deteriorate so quickly."

Isobel Lovett, a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell's Newcastle office, who represented Elke, said: "This has
been an extremely difficult time for Elke and Natalie, who were
devastated by the loss of their father and have fought tirelessly
to honour his name and secure justice.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Seeks $50MM Loan for Mr. Fluffy Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
Queanbeyan City Council has called on the Australian Commonwealth
to extend a $50 million loan to the NSW government to buy back and
demolish about 60 Mr Fluffy houses.

The council wants a replica of the ACT assistance package, saying
it is the only way to end the scourge of loose amosite asbestos
across the border.

At a packed community centre, Mr Fluffy home owners from
Queanbeyan and the surrounding region  gave evidence to the NSW
Inquiry into Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation in its final public
hearing, before it reports to the state government by February 16.

Committee chairman the Reverend Fred Nile shook his head with
disbelief at hearing the evidence of Queanbeyan Mr Fluffy home
owner Petra Wiesner, who described how she and her husband, Kieran
Ferris, had unwittingly exposed themselves, friends and
tradespeople, to visible layers of unremediated asbestos in their
roof on numerous occasions while they renovated their home - which
is now vacant as they await a government decision on their fate.

Reverend Nile described as "almost criminal neglect" the
Commonwealth government's decision not to shut down Dirk Jansen in
1968 when it received advice from the Department of Health warning
of the harm Mr Fluffy brand loose amosite asbestos could cause
residents.

He also made a note of separate Commonwealth advice received in
the late 1980s on the Mr Fluffy health threat to children.

"The other tragedy in all of this is the evidence of what this Mr
Fluffy asbestos has on children - children are developing their
lungs and are far more sensitive and it can cause far more damage
to those children," Reverend Nile told the hearing.

Mayor Tim Overall appealed for the inquiry to recommend immediate
action on Mr Fluffy, following decades of neglect for Queanbeyan
residents who missed the 1988 $100 million Commonwealth clean-up
and who were not included in October's $1 billion Commonwealth
loan to the ACT to buy back and demolish 1021 homes.

He called for a final and "permanent solution" through the
demolition of up to 60 homes, saying anything less would be a
second-class solution for the residents of Queanbeyan. Just 15
homes have been identified as Mr Fluffy because the screening
process taking place across Queanbeyan and NSW is voluntary.

Mayor Overall called for a taskforce modelled on ACT lines and the
introduction of a "robust mandatory inspection process for all
homes built before 1980" to be accompanied by a financial
assistance package.

He said that based on ACT figures, Queanbeyan was likely to have
50 to 60 Mr Fluffy homes but many owners were too scared to come
forward for testing because of the lack of any form of government
support or funding for remediation.

Mayor Overall and Queanbeyan City Council group manager of
sustainability and better living Michael Thompson also came under
intense questioning by Greens inquiry member David Shoebridge over
the council's failure to institute any warnings or legal
protection for buyers who may unwittingly purchase a Mr Fluffy
home.

Mr Shoebridge said he found it extraordinary that while the
council knew of 15 homes containing the deadly insulation,
including a block of flats, it had no disclosure or warning system
in place during the sales process.

Mr Thompson revealed that at least two Mr Fluffy homes had been
sold during the past four years to owners who potentially had no
idea of the toxic real estate they were buying.  He said there
could be some merit in a system of mandatory reporting of Mr
Fluffy homes but the council had not sought any legal advice on
its own liability if an owner sought legal action against it over
the sale.

Mr Shoebridge questioned whether the council, as a public
authority, had a responsibility to protect its residents from
potential exposure.

"I find it extraordinary that you haven't . . . sought to get
proactive legal advice so as you can protect essentially a large
part of future residents from being exposed to this deeply
dangerous material," he said.

"You are a public authority with an obligation to protect the
residents. You've got this red-hot information about a public
safety issue and yet you don't do anything with it, how do you
explain that?"

Mr Thomson said "I can't explain that -- I'm sorry", adding that
councils throughout NSW were still relying on NSW Health
Department guidelines that suggested Mr Fluffy asbestos was safe
as long as it was contained -- and left undisturbed -- within
homes.  Mr Thompson said his opinion was that he did not know
where there was ever a safe level of asbestos.

Mayor Overall said the council did not have the legal authority to
waive privacy and confidentiality rules regarding Mr Fluffy homes,
and needed the state and Commonwealth governments to intervene
with a legislative and financial assistance package.  He said the
council had spent almost three decades seeking assistance from
state and Commonwealth authorities for its loose-fill asbestos
issue, to no avail.  He expressed his profound disappointment
Queanbeyan had not been included in the ACT's buy-back and
demolition package.

"I had a personal expectation, rightly or wrongly, that they would
see it as a national health issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 80 Fibro Dumpings in Wollongong in Past Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antony Field, writing for Illawara Mercury, reported that there
have been 80 incidents of illegal dumping of asbestos in the local
government area of Wollongong, in Australia, in the past year, the
city council has revealed.

The most recent incident happened at Mount Keira and was reported
to the council on November 6.  The offenders have not as yet been
caught and council officers are still investigating.

In 2013-14, the council spent $59,209 cleaning up asbestos-
containing materials that had been dumped, using licensed
contractors.

The alarming figures were revealed to the Wollongong Advertiser in
response to questions asked about Asbestos Awareness Month in
November.

Wollongong City Council is running an education campaign to warn
DIY renovators of the dangers of exposure to asbestos fibres
during home renovations and maintenance.

One in three Australian homes contains asbestos and the fire-
resistant silicate mineral is found in many homes and buildings
across NSW built before 1987. If cut, drilled or water-blasted,
non-friable asbestos can become airborne and if breathed in, can
cause diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma.

Non-friable asbestos is used in fibro, corrugated or compressed
asbestos cement sheets, water, drainage and flue pipes and floor
tiles.

Friable asbestos can be crumbled, pulverised or reduced to powder
by hand pressure when dry. It was not commonly used in the home
but for industrial purposes, such as pipe lagging and asbestos
cloth.

There are a range of fines and prison sentences for illegal
dumping, ranging from $750 to $1 million and seven years' jail for
individuals and $1500 to $5 million for corporations.

A council spokeswoman said residents who saw illegal dumping of
asbestos should call 4227 7111 to report it.

The Whytes Gully waste depot at Kembla Grange does not accept
asbestos materials and there are no licensed asbestos disposal
facilities in the Wollongong LGA. The closest landfills that
accept asbestos are at Lucas Heights and West Nowra.

The council spokeswoman said a small number of asbestos removal
companies in Wollongong accept small amounts (under 10 square
metres) of non-friable asbestos under strict packaging and
transport conditions.

Shellharbour council accepts asbestos at its Dunmore landfill for
transfer, while Kiama council does not.

A September 2013 Wollongong council report considered setting up
an asbestos disposal facility at Whytes Gully. The council decided
against it, citing the ability of external organisations to
dispose of asbestos, the limited size of Whytes Gully and the
health and safety controls and costs required.

The council's promotions co-ordinator for waste management, Fiona
Netting, said the council was trying to raise awareness of
asbestos by distributing brochures and posters to hardware stores,
libraries and on bus shelters.

"I don't think most people are aware that asbestos is found in a
number of areas around the home," Ms Netting said.

"Asbestos didn't stop being used totally until 2003 ... even the
smallest amounts of asbestos can be dangerous. If you're not sure
[it's asbestos] please get someone that knows how to assess it."

Illegal dumping was a big issue for health and the environment.

"You don't want to be walking around and find it dumped in the
bush and breathing that in."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justices Eye Philly Fibro Consolidation Protocol
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported that
when the Philadelphia Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in
Rost v. Ford, it gave itself the opportunity to consider a unique
rule that requires the consolidation of asbestos-related cases in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

It is the only court in the state that requires consolidation of
asbestos cases, attorneys said, thanks to a rule established when
asbestos filings were at a peak level.

"From a defendant's standpoint, that is extremely prejudicial,"
said John J. Hare of the appellate department at Marshall Dennehey
Warner Coleman & Goggin. "These cases were consolidated with
different plaintiffs, different products, different exposure
history, different medical history."

But the practice still serves a purpose, said Stanley Thompson,
director of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Complex
Litigation Center, as more than 200 asbestos cases are filed each
year.

"The fact of the matter is that these cases are still out there,"
said Benjamin P. Shein, an asbestos plaintiffs attorney. "You
can't bring a program to a screeching halt, or you'll be right
back where you were before consolidation."

Fairness of Consolidation

In Rost, the high court will consider "whether the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas' mandatory practice of consolidating
unrelated asbestos cases . . . 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," according to the Supreme Court order granting
allocatur.

Richard Rost's case was consolidated with two others involving
plaintiffs who had mesothelioma, Estate of Wasekanes v. Sears and
Graver v. Foster Wheeler.

A Philadelphia jury awarded $844,800 to Rost and $150,000 to his
wife, Joyce Rost. The case faced cross-appeals in the Superior
Court, and the court upheld the verdict.

In its petition to the Supreme Court for allowance of appeal, Ford
said consolidation of these cases caused defendants to suffer
severe prejudice.

"The three cases did not share common defendants, common claims,
common defenses, common facts, common products, common work sites
or common counsel," the defense said in its petition. "The only
thing they had in common was alleged asbestos exposure and
plaintiffs with mesothelioma."

Ford had raised the same issue in an appeal to the Superior Court.
In response, the court said it did not have authority to address
the procedural issue without a claim of constitutional violation.

"Ford argues that the trial court erred in consolidating the Rost
case with two other cases based upon the grounds that all three
involved plaintiffs suffering from mesothelioma," Superior Court
Judge Jack A. Panella wrote in the court's opinion. "However, we
note that Ford does not cite to any Pennsylvania appellate
authority to support its argument that consolidation of asbestos
trials by disease constitutes reversible error."

Duane Morris attorney Robert L. Byer represented Ford and declined
to comment. Rost's lawyer, Robert E. Paul of Paul, Reich & Myers,
did not return a call seeking comment.

Consolidation can be problematic for defendants, said Hare, if the
cases are not similar enough.

"At the end of the day, the jury is required to segregate the
different cases," he said. "They hear a blizzard of arguments and
allegations and witnesses. . . .  They can't keep track of which
witnesses apply to which cases."

Steven J. Cooperstein of Brookman, Rosenberg, Brown & Sandler, who
represents plaintiffs in asbestos cases, disagreed.

"The juries can pretty easily distinguish between cases and award
an appropriate verdict," he said. "I don't see any real downside
from the plaintiffs' standpoint to consolidating."

If cases were not consolidated, Cooperstein said, plaintiffs would
have to wait longer for their court dates. Trying the cases would
be more expensive too, he said, because expert witnesses would
have to attend multiple trials, and the costs of resources could
not be split among multiple cases.

Shein said he agreed with Cooperstein on the benefits of
consolidation. However, he said, in some situations the practice
could be unfair for either side.

"I think that the parties need to be charged with the
responsibility of making sure that the cases that are consolidated
make sense from a fairness standpoint," he said. "I don't think
that's something the Supreme Court can really get involved in."

Cases Remain Plentiful

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has a specific set of rules
related to mass torts, and a subset of rules regarding asbestos
litigation in particular.

Asbestos cases are the only type that can be consolidated without
the consent of all parties involved, according to General Court
Regulation No. 2013-01, amended in February 2013. The regulation
said asbestos cases must be consolidated into groups of eight to
10, based on various criteria including same law, same disease and
same plaintiffs law firm.

From there, a maximum of three cases will be tried, the regulation
said, and the others may be resolved through settlement or
returned to the coordinating judge for regrouping and relisting
for trial. Immediately before the trial of up to three cases, the
judge is to determine whether they will be tried in a consolidated
manner.

Before the amendment, more than three cases could be tried
together and occasionally were.

When the rule was established in the late 1980s, the court had a
backlog of thousands of asbestos cases, Thompson said. The
regulation allowed for that backlog to shrink.

However, the number of cases has remained steady in recent years.
According to the court's inventory breakdown, the court has had a
backlog of between 566 and 762 asbestos cases each quarter since
January 2009.

"I think consolidation works. It's proven to work for a number of
years. We've gotten rid of the backlog," Shein said. "Is there
such thing as a perfect system? There's not."

The court currently has 633 cases, said Thompson, 365 of which are
listed for trial, and 260 are to be listed.

Thompson said he could not address whether the protocols were up
for consideration by the court. More than 200 asbestos cases are
filed each year, he said, and the goal is to get them all resolved
or to trial within two years of filing.

"In a perfect world, every case would be tried individually,"
Thompson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Federal Judge Junks Evidence Spoliation Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that an Illinois federal judge granted several motions to dismiss
allegations that the defendants destroyed or spoiled evidence in
an asbestos case after the plaintiff failed to adequately describe
the events leading to the spoliation allegations.

Judge Staci M. Yandle delivered the Oct. 31 order in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, granting
several defendants' motions to dismiss Counts IV and V of
plaintiff Gerald D. Mcalvery's complaint.

Mcalvery initially filed his complaint alleging the defendants
contributed to his development of an asbestos-related injury in
the Madison County Circuit Court before it was removed to the
district court.

As part of his complaint, Mcalvery alleges the defendants
willfully and wantonly or negligently spoiled evidence.
Previously, the defendants sought to dismiss the spoliation
claims.

The court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the claims.
However, it noted that if the plaintiff could develop evidence
showing the defendants could have anticipated lawsuits and should
have preserved evidence, then he may file a motion for leave to
amend and reinstate the claim.

Addressing Count V specifically, the court explained that the
Illinois does not recognize the claim for willful and wanton
spoliation.

Mcalvery responded by filing an amended complaint and against
alleged the same spoliation allegations against the defendants.

Yandle stated that the wording of both Counts IV and V in the
second amended complaint does not raise any additional information
to alter the court's original determination on the claims.

Additionally, there are three pending motions to dismiss the
counts and Mcalvery was required to file responses to the motions
on July 28, Aug. 4 and Aug. 7, but he failed to respond to any of
the motions.

The court, therefore, issued an order to show cause why a response
to these motion was not filed by Oct. 20, but Mcalvery again
failed to respond.

"Courts are reluctant to dismiss a case on technical grounds and
prefer to decide cases on their merits," Yandle wrote.

Yandle held that while a complaint might not contain all of the
facts that would be necessary to prove a claim, it should be
"short and plain" and it should notify the defendant of the
disputed events.

In this case, Mcalvery's allegations in the two counts failed to
sufficiently describe the events leading to the claims.

Additionally, he did not alter the language of the complaint after
he supposedly amended Counts IV and V and failed to file any
responses to the defendants' motions to dismiss.

As a result, the court adopted its previous ruling and granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Says Complex Libby Assessment Takes Time
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reported that Montana
Gov. Steve Bullock says he is frustrated with the Environmental
Protection Agency over delays in releasing the final toxicity
values and Human Health Risk Assessment for Libby amphibole
asbestos -- a critical report that will direct the future of
Lincoln County's massive Superfund clean up. But officials with
the EPA say that finding the toxicity value that is critical to
the assessment's release is a complex process and one that cannot
be rushed.

On Nov. 3, Bullock sent a letter to the EPA asking why the
toxicity value and health assessment had not yet been released.
More than a year ago, EPA officials said it would be released
sometime in 2014, but with December approaching it appears the
federal agency will miss that mark.

"The community of Libby has been waiting for 15 years for a final
cleanup plan, and it's time to provide the people of Libby
certainty regarding the proposed cleanup," Bullock wrote to EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy. "Further, the lack of toxicity values
for Libby Asbestos Amphibole makes it difficult, if not
impossible, for the state to fulfill its role under the Superfund
to consult with the EPA regarding the protectiveness of a proposed
cleanup."

For years, asbestos-laden vermiculate was mined near Libby by the
Maryland-based W.R. Grace & Company. The mine closed in 1990, but
the effects of the poisonous asbestos have lasted for years.
According to the Center for Asbestos Related Disease, also known
as the CARD Clinic, some 2,000 current or former residents of
Lincoln County have been diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases
and at least 400 have died. Libby was declared an EPA Superfund
site in 2002 and in June 2009, former EPA administrator Lisa
Jackson named the town the agency's first and only Public Health
Emergency resulting from an environmental disaster.

The Human Health Risk Assessment would include risk assessments
for different groups in the population, including adults,
teenagers and children, and how much exposure to asbestos they
would need to be impacted by it. It would also look at exposure
risk from different activities in the Libby and Troy area.

The draft risk assessment was released to the public and Science
Advisory Board in 2011. In 2014, the EPA sent a revised draft
addressing concerns from the advisory board out for an interagency
review. Once the EPA has reviewed the document internally it will
update it and finalize the assessment. An official with the EPA
told the Beacon that putting together such an assessment is
complex and that the time it has taken is not unusual.

"The EPA has received and acknowledges the governor's letter and
continues to work to finalize the assessment for Libby Amphibole
Asbestos. We recognize the importance of finalizing the toxicity
values for Libby and the state of Montana," the EPA official told
the Beacon.

The completion of the risk assessment could mean one of two things
for Libby; it will either signal the beginning of the end of the
EPA cleanup or the beginning of even more work in Lincoln County.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Docs Trying to Stop Fibro Use in Asia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tatsuya Tsujimura, writing for The Japan Times, reported that
Japanese doctors are stepping up efforts to help Asia's developing
economies stop using asbestos, sharing knowledge bitterly learned
in Japan about the serious and fatal illnesses caused by the
material that was used in abundance during the postwar economic
boom through the 1970s.

Emerging economies continue using the affordable but hazardous
silicate minerals "because they are still in the process of
development and because the 30- to 50-year latent period of
mesothelioma has prevented widespread recognition of future
costs," said Ken Takahashi, a professor at the University of
Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan.

In October, Takahashi led an Asia-Pacific workshop in Jakarta on
sound management of industrial chemicals. The workshop was
organized by the Asia Asbestos Initiative, a program that
Takahashi launched in 2008 in collaboration with the U.N.
Environmental Program.

Indonesia remains one of the world's biggest asbestos users, but
public awareness of the risks posed by inhaling the carcinogen is
still low.

The country's largest asbestos product plant, located in the
outskirts of Cikarang, West Java, for example, has a disposal site
nearby where local residents, including children, frequently
scavenge metals to earn a living.

A nongovernmental organization reported four years ago that
residents in the area were exposed to the risks of asbestos,
sending a shock wave throughout Canada, an exporter of the
carcinogenic substance to the Southeast Asian country.

Asia consumes some 70 percent of the asbestos produced in the
world and Indonesia is the third-largest consumer after China and
India.

Regulations to control the use of asbestos are loose in Indonesia,
and effective technologies to detect malignant mesothelial tumors
and asbestosis are not yet available.

Although an incident similar to Japan's asbestos epidemic has yet
to occur in Indonesia, asbestos-induced tragedies are occurring
"day after day," said Dimu Pratama, 28, a member of the NGO.

A recent survey at another plant in Indonesia found that about
half of the workers and nearby residents are suffering from
respiratory difficulties, and Japanese and South Korean doctors
discovered asbestosis in three of them.

Siti Kristina, 47, one of the three patients, worked at the plant
in Cibinong, also in West Java, for about 20 years, engaging in
assignments such as mixing asbestos with her hands.

"Some of my former colleagues are still working," she said.
"Research must continue."

In Japan, deaths resulting from mesothelioma are increasing
sharply now that some 40 years have passed since the high growth
period when asbestos was widely used. Asbestos use was banned in
1975, but in 2005, reports revealed health problems found among
residents near a Kubota Corp. asbestos plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo
Prefecture.

For developing countries, the risk of asbestos is still "a fire on
the opposite shore as it was for Japan in the past," Takahashi,
57, said.

Takahashi began studies on asbestos-related diseases in the late
1980s. His stop-asbestos initiative has organized an international
meeting of researchers and government officials every year.

But major producers of asbestos, such as Russia and Canada, have
kept promoting the consumption of the silica minerals, stressing
that chrysotile, the most widely used form of asbestos, causes no
hazardous problems if used safely and that alternatives to
asbestos are expensive.

Takahashi said that "there is no safe use of asbestos because all
varieties of the mineral have been scientifically proven
carcinogenic and recognized as such by the World Health
Organization."

Although alternatives are priced at 10 to 15 percent higher,
future costs are estimated to be $3 for every $1 worth of asbestos
used, he said.

Takahashi's program is starting to bear fruit in cooperation with
the WHO and the International Labor Organization.

In its October meeting in Jakarta, the seventh of its kind,
participants heard reports from Vietnam and Thailand on moves for
a total ban on the use of asbestos.

Through the program, Takumi Kishimoto, deputy director of the
Okayama Rosai Hospital, supports the treatment of asbestos-induced
diseases in Mongolia and China as a specialist in the field.

Crocidolite, the most hazardous variety, is still in use in the
two countries.

While patients with mesothelioma can live relatively long lives if
the disease is found at an early stage, "diagnosis has yet to be
improved," Kishimoto, 62, said.

Koki Inai, a pathologist and professor emeritus at Hiroshima
University, examined samples of tissues from 34 people diagnosed
as suffering from mesothelioma in Vietnam and found only seven
actually had the disease.

"I would like to carry out Internet-based remote diagnosis and
educate technicians who make tissue samples, even at my own
expense," Inai, 66, said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coltrec Says New Info Won't Alter Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reported that reopening
Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's personal injury liability
proceeding to allow asbestos claimants to introduce new evidence
would be a waste of time, Garlock's parent company argued, saying
it wouldn't change the fact a bankruptcy judge had already
rejected the claimants' committee's liability theory.

Coltec Industries Inc. filed papers in North Carolina bankruptcy
court to fight back against the official asbestos personal injury
claimants' committee's argument that Garlock concealed its past
settlement strategies and knowledge regarding other sources of
exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Says Fibro Claims Rising
------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Letts, writing for ABC News, reported that building
products maker James Hardie has confirmed asbestos-related claims
are continuing to grow at a faster-than-expected rate.

Releasing its 2015 first-half results, James Hardie reported
asbestos related claims were 5 per cent higher than for the
corresponding six months last year, while the second quarter
claims were 12 per cent higher year-on-year.

The claims were also well ahead on actuarial estimates, up 19 per
cent on what was expected for the quarter and 10 per cent on the
half.

The figures come two months after the Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund (AICF) announced that it was facing a $184
million shortfall in funding by 2017 and was proposing to move to
an instalment scheme to help cover the gap.

That plan drew heavy criticism from the Asbestos Diseases
Foundation which described it as "morally bankrupt" as "victims
don't die by instalments, they need lump sum payments."

Since its formation in 2007, AICF has settled almost 4,000 claims
and paid out almost $800 million to asbestos victims.

James Hardie's last payment to the fund was $US113 million in July
this year, which represented 35 per cent of the company's free
cash flow.

The first-half results show average size of settlements was 6 per
cent lower compared to the same period last year.

In a statement to the ASX James Hardie noted: "The decrease in
average claim settlement for the half-year is largely attributable
to a lower number of large mesothelioma claims being settled
compared to the prior corresponding half-year."

"We caution that there are a number of large pending claims which
might materially increase the average settlement size."

AICF's actuarial advice is that the net present value of its
future claims over the next 30 years is $1.87 billion dollars.

The estimate includes a projected rise in mesothelioma claims
which grew 20 per cent in 2013.

James Hardie reported a first-half net profit of $US156.1 million,
a 20 per cent fall on the corresponding period last year.

However, in a note to clients, CLSA analysts noted the second
quarter core net profit of $US65.5 million was well ahead of more
bearish market predictions.

CLSA said it "continues to be concerned that asbestos claims were
19 per cent above actuarial assessments and the higher
mesothelioma claims trend is continuing."

"While the operating environment in both US and Australia has
improved compared to the prior corresponding quarter, the recovery
of the US housing market remains below our expectations at the
beginning of the year," said James Hardie chief executive Louis
Gries.

"When we look at the US housing market, and the broader US economy
as a whole, we see continued uncertainty around the recovery in
the short-term, however, our view remains unchanged on the medium
and longer-term outlook."

The company maintained guidance for a full-year profit of between
$US205 and 235 million.

James Hardie shares closed 4 per cent higher on the day at $12.52.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Upholds Federal Officer Removal Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a federal appeals court has granted a lower court
jurisdiction over a former Navy sailor's asbestos lawsuit
according to the federal officer removal defense.

Judge Gerard E. Lynch delivered the Nov. 13 opinion in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversing the lower
court's judgment. Judges Pierre N. Leval and Christopher F. Droney
concurred.

Defendant Crane Co. filed the appeal after the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York ordered the asbestos case to
be remanded back to state court.

Plaintiff Susan Cuomo filed the failure-to-warn action against
Crane Co. and several other defendants in a state court in New
York on behalf of her late husband Joseph.

She alleged the decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in
the U.S. Navy from 1974 to 1980. She accuses Crane Co. of causing
her husband's injury by failing to include warning labels on the
asbestos-containing valves it supplied for the Navy's vessels.

Crane Co. removed the suit to the district court under the federal
officer removal statute in January 2013.

Then in November 2013, the district court granted Cuomo's motion
to remand, finding that Crane Co. did not provide evidence that
the Navy's specifications either "prohibited" or "dictated" the
allowed asbestos warnings on Crane's products.

The district court further held that Crane Co. failed to identify
any significant conflict between the Navy's safety regulations and
New York's tort liability standards so as to give rise to a
colorable federal contractor defense.

On appeal, Crane Co. argued that the district court erred when it
required the defendant to produce evidence that the Navy dictated
the asbestos warnings as the basis of Crane's federal contractor
defense.

The appeals court agreed, holding that Crane Co. did, in fact,
assert a colorable federal contractor defense despite the absence
of the evidence the district court takes issue with.

In support of removal, Crane Co. provided several affidavits and
numerous documentary exhibits suggesting the Navy provided
detailed specifications for the valves that Crane supplied for its
vessels, Crane's valves must have conformed to those
specifications if they were accepted by the Navy and the Navy was
aware of the health risks associated with asbestos by the 1970s.

"This evidence provides a colorable factual basis for each prong
of the federal contractor defense," the appeals court held.

Additionally, Judge Lynch wrote that the plaintiff's competing
testimony did not undercut Crane Co.'s right to removal. Instead,
it raised the same factual dispute regarding the validity of the
defense "that should be submitted to the judgment of a federal
court."

Cuomo's argument that Crane Co. cannot make a colorable bid for
the federal contractor defense "exaggerates" the requirements of
the defense and the threshold for federal removal, Judge Lynch
held.

Cuomo correctly noted that some evidence that the disputed product
warnings "resulted from a determination of a government official,"
meaning the government dictated what warnings should be provided,
the opinion said. However, the appeals court added that "dictating
the content of a warning does not necessarily require the
government to prescribe its literal terms."

Because Crane Co. provided evidence that the Navy issued
specifications regarding the production and packaging of its
valves, which did not mention asbestos warnings, the evidence
"easily clears the low threshold for asserting a federal
contractor defense for purposes of removal."

"Whether or not that evidence will ultimately be sufficient to
persuade a federal court that these specifications articulated a
discretionary safety policy by the Navy effectively 'limiting'
Crane's ability to affix additional asbestos warnings, or even to
raise a fact issue that will survive a motion for pretrial summary
judgment, Crane has certainly provided sufficient evidence to
create at this preliminary stage a colorable possibility of
satisfying that standard," Judge Lynch wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Dept. Probing Mount Manresa Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Shapiro, writing for SILive.com, reported that the New York
City Department of Investigation is scrutinizing the former
asbestos investigator at the controversial Mount Manresa site who
previously said there was no asbestos when city Department of
Environmental Protection found the substance there.

Asbestos investigator Gaspare Santoro took 19 samples from six
buildings at the former Jesuit retreat center where developers
Savo Brothers are demolishing buildings to make way for 250
townhouses.

Santoro said he found no asbestos, but Department of Environmental
Protection investigators found the substance and issued 28
violations totaling $67,400 to Santoro, the owners of the property
and the contractor.

On Sept. 29, Paul Jennings became the certified asbestos
investigator working on that site and took about 300 samples, as
compared to Santoro's 19.

In mid-October, the city Department of Buildings issued a stop-
work order for all construction and land clearing while asbestos
abatement is completed.

The order will remain in effect until the abatement is completed
and the Department of Environmental Protection reviews it.

A Department of Environmental Protection spokesperson said that
work is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Residents and members of the Committee to Save Mount Manresa had
pushed for a stop-work order to be put into place.

The Department of Environmental Protection investigated Santoro's
work and issued violations, and Borough President James Oddo
recently asked the Department of Investigation to investigate, and
ensure that no permits will be issued for work at the site until
the investigation is complete.

"It is striking that Santoro took 19 samples and Jennings took
300. And, while I am not an expert in asbestos investigation, this
kind of disparity should not exist," Oddo wrote in an Oct. 3
letter before the stop-work order was issued. "Something was
clearly amiss with the initial assessment. I cannot say whether
this was a case of incompetence, something more nefarious, or a
combination of the two."

In a Nov. 27 letter to Oddo, Commissioner Mark G. Peters affirmed
that the department is investigating the matter.

A Department of Environmental Protection spokesperson said that
department's investigation concluded with the filing of the
violations, which will be heard by the city Environmental Control
Board. The DEP turned the investigation over to the Department of
Investigation.

According to city regulations, during asbestos abatement,
contractors must use air-monitoring companies that are licensed by
the NYS Department of Labor. An independent laboratory, certified
by the NYS Department of Health, and the Department of
Environmental Protection, analyze the air samples.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore College Hid Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------
Bridget Ortigo, writing for News Journal, reported that Kilgore
College students and staff as well as the public have been exposed
to asbestos in campus buildings over a period of several years,
the college's facilities director said.

The public institution's handling of the situation is the focus of
a federal investigation, according to college officials who have
been involved.

Facilities Director Dalton Smith, a 12-year employee of the
college, said thousands of people have been exposed to improperly
handled asbestos in the Randolph C. Watson Library, Rangerette
gym, Stark Hall and the Quads dormitories, and Dodson Auditorium,
which is home to Kilgore College and area high school graduation
ceremonies, Rangerette shows and other dance competitions.

Smith made the situation public, he said, after being ordered by
his supervisor, Director of Special Projects Dan Beach, to cover
up the carcinogenic material's existence over the past few years.

"I just couldn't take it any more," he said. "Knowing thousands of
people and children are being exposed to this stuff. I couldn't
stay silent anymore."

Smith said he went to federal investigators to inform them of what
he called the college administration's years-long effort to cover
up the situation, apparently to save time and avoid costly and
lengthy abatement procedures.

A representative for the FBI said that the agency could not
confirm or deny any investigation.

Kilgore College officials said they are unaware of any such
investigation.

College's response

"The college has not been informed of, nor is it aware of any
investigation, federal or otherwise, of asbestos violations on our
campuses," college spokesman Chris Craddock said. "The college
recently spent four years to prepare for a one-week, EPA-
sanctioned review of the college, and initial indications show
that there were no major findings. The final and complete report
will not be complete for a couple of months."

While Craddock said the college is safe for use, board trustee
Carlos "Scooter" Griffin Jr., who confirmed he was questioned by
federal investigators, said he wants Dodson Auditorium shut down
until an expert has declared it safe.

The auditorium is scheduled to be used in December for the
Rangerettes Christmas show.

"I did have FBI and EPA investigators question me on three
separate incidents," Griffin said. "They asked about Dodson
Auditorium. They specifically asked me if I knew asbestos was
present, and I said I did not know that it was. I learned far more
from them than they did from me."

Neither Beach nor Kilgore College President Bill Holda returned
calls and emails seeking comment.

The hazard

Though now largely outlawed, asbestos was long used in
construction because of its good insulating capabilities. It is
not a health hazard until it's disturbed and its fibers becomes
airborne. In that state, research shows, the fibers can cause
breathing problems and, in some cases, cancer such as
mesothelioma.

Old and brittle asbestos products also can release microscopic
fibers. The fibers can remain suspended in the air and enter lungs
when inhaled.

Smith said he began talking to investigators in early November
about asbestos violations on campus after being told several times
over the years to improperly cover up and have employees dispose
of the material.

One of the first instances this year, Smith said, was when the
Rangerettes were preparing for their annual spring show, Revels.
The event draws thousands of people to Dodson Auditorium.

"We had a commode or pipe bust upstairs and it overflowed and
water had come down the stairs right into the doorway of the
mezzanine," Smith said. "When it dried out, the ceiling had
bubbled and as it dried out, it became friable (when asbestos
becomes airborne and harmful)."

Improper removal

During rehearsals, a sound technician pointed out the asbestos
exposure caused by the leak, but Rangerette directors wanted to
continue with the show, Smith said.

By law, he said, the college had to notify the Texas Department of
State and Health Services a minimum of 10 working days before any
asbestos removal.

The work must be done under supervision of a licensed asbestos
consultant, and a state-licensed Air Monitoring Technician should
observe work-area preparations and perform area air sampling and
analysis, post abatement visual inspection and aggressive air
clearance sampling and analysis.

Instead of doing that, Smith said, Beach, Marketing and Enrollment
Management Director Trey Hattaway and Vice President of Student
Development Mike Jenkins decided maintenance supervisor Rick
Murphy should handle it. Hattaway and Jenkins did not return
emails seeking comment.

"He is not licensed, and he just dressed up in a hazmat suit and
went in there with Terry Huckaby and cut it out," Smith said. "Dan
Beach told Rick Murphy to suit up and make it look like it was an
official abatement. He went in there and cut out a 4-by-4 square
and put it in a double-bagged trash bag. Then they just went and
threw it away in dumpsters on campus."

Then, Smith said, the show went on.

"The (Rangerettes) went back in there, and we didn't do an air
test or anything," he said. "That stuff was just floating around
in there. I don't know how long asbestos stays in the air, but I
sure wouldn't have wanted my kids in there, and they sure
shouldn't have wanted theirs in there."

Longview campus

Smith also said asbestos was ignored when the college demolished a
house near downtown Longview to make way for an expansion of the
Kilgore College-Longview campus.

A May 13 email exchange between Holda and Kilgore College-Longview
Executive Dean Julie Fowler showed Holda telling Fowler, "Let's
assume there is none," when referring to asbestos.

According to a survey given to the college's administration April
10, Holda knew the house contained asbestos, Smith said.

"I was instructed by Dan Beach to find a 'mom and pop' type
company to do the demolition without asking about an abatement,"
he said. "And I did. I found a little local construction company
that came in and tore it down that didn't ask if we had had it
abated, and I didn't tell them. His workers were all exposed to
that asbestos during the demolition."

Smith said that in May, his maintenance crews replaced a pipe in
the Rangerette gym that contained asbestos. He said the
administration refused to pay to have the area properly abated
before work was to be done.

"All of my people have been exposed to it, all the way back to
when Leon Dodgen (the facilities director before Smith) was here,"
Smith said. "They've been doing illegal abatements since he was
here. He used to haul it off to his house and dump it. I have
Murphy on recording saying that they used to haul it out to
Dodgen's house and dump it."

Reports

In 1997, the college had an asbestos survey performed by ERI
Consulting Inc. It showed several areas of asbestos throughout
Dodson Auditorium and elsewhere on campus.

In a tour of the college, Smith pointed out places where he said
asbestos is exposed on the ceilings of Dodson Auditorium's sound
booth.  The college's sound technician told Smith he and another
worker often handle the asbestos-covered material when changing
lights in the auditorium.  The sound room's ceiling is covered
with yellow spots of glue containing asbestos where it is exposed
from falling ceiling tiles, Smith said. The asbestos was
identified in the 1997 survey and remains today as it was then, he
said.

Craddock insists the college is safe for use.

"There was a complete review in 1996 of asbestos on the college's
campus, and any areas that showed signs of asbestos were either
removed or encapsulated to ensure the safety of all people on
campus," Craddock said.

A legal abatement was performed on Dodson Auditorium in 2010;
other areas of the campus have also had legal abatements,
documents show.

However, Smith said the illegal abatements continue to be
prevalent and asbestos remains on campus.

"If that is there (asbestos) and they're hiding it, shame on
them," Griffin said. They are going to have to answer to their
maker."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scapa Flow Torpedo Survivor Killed by Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen McGinty, writing for The Scotsman, reported that an
engineer, who survived the torpedoing of the HMS Royal Oak at
Scapa Flow in Orkney during the Second World War, was killed at
the age of 92 by asbestos, a coroner has ruled.

Herbert Pocock was thought to be one of only three remaining
survivors of the sinking of the battleship HMS Royal Oak in
October 1939. More than 800 of the 1,200-strong crew, many of whom
were asleep at the time, perished in the German U-boat attack.

Mr Pocock, aged just 17, had a narrow escape.

The coroner ruled that asbestos was the cause of his death at home
in Berkshire on 2 August.

Peter Bedford noted that a post-mortem examination revealed
malignant mesothelioma on his right lung, with asbestos fibres
also found in his tissue.

Mr Bedford said: "As soon as I hear Royal Navy and engineer, that
is a known link to asbestos. His exposure to asbestos is as a
result of his employment at some point in the past.

"I have read this wonderful reference to his surviving of the
torpedo attack, and he had previously described himself as 'a very
lucky man'.

"His luck ran out but he was 92 years old, so it could have been a
lot worse."

Speaking at the inquest in Reading, Mr Pocock's son John told the
story of his father's escape from HMS Royal Oak.

He said: "He was down in the boys' deck sleeping on his hammock
when the first torpedo hit, All the boys woke up and were then
told that everything was alright, so they were told to get back in
their hammocks. The submarine then missed with a couple of other
torpedoes but came back around, this time hitting with three."

Mr Pocock had been shown a shortcut to get out of the lower deck
by an officer on the ship, who paid him a small amount to make his
bed, and sprung into action to escape.

John added: "There was a ladder by his hammock so he was used to
going up that. When all the lights went out when the torpedoes hit
again he found his way out, going up the ladder, through the
kitchen and a gun turret and out."

A tug boat attached to HMS Royal Oak had cut itself free and
picked up some of the few survivors who had escaped the sinking
battleship, including Mr Pocock.

Following his escape, he continued to work as an engineer in the
Royal Navy and then became a commando, seeing action on HMS
Manchester in North Africa and clearing beaches in Italy before he
suffered a shrapnel wound and was discharged on medical grounds.

Mr Pocock was a regular visitor to the designated maritime war
grave at Orkney and took part in commemorations for shipmates who
lost their lives. He was married to Catherine for more than 60
years and the couple had two sons, James and John.  Mr Pocock
worked in private engineering until he was 65 years old.

Mr Bedford heard that Mr Pocock had been diagnosed with
tuberculosis in 1946 but that was deemed "inactive" by 1949. In
more recent years, he had suffered with fluid on his lungs and had
procedures to drain them. He added: "For a gentleman of 92 years,
he has a remarkably good medical history."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labourer Fatally Exposed to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a man from Southampton, England,
died following a long career of being exposed to asbestos, an
inquest heard.

Ernest Chandler, of Lawford Way in Totton, developed malignant
mesothelioma after working as a general labourer and a "chippy"
throughout Hampshire.  In a statement sent to his solicitors,
after the then 70-year-old was diagnosed in March of this year, he
said that he had worked for numerous companies from 1961 to the
late 70s, cutting and fixing asbestos.

Mr Chandler, who left a children's home in Headbourne Worthy in
1959 to begin work, recalled repairing fascias at houses in
Stanmore and Winnall in Winchester, the King Alfred Training
Centre, maisonettes in Marchwood, Fawley Power Station as well as
Shirley Towers flats, where he cut and fitted asbestos sheets in
airing cupboards.

A verdict of death due to industrial disease was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plymouth Lawyers Join Fibro Case Specialists
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Telford, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that two
solicitors from Plymouth, England, have been nationally accredited
as asbestos disease specialists by the Association of Personal
Injury Lawyers (APIL).

Partner James Walsh and associate lawyer John Messham both work
for North Hill-based Wolferstans.  They are among just 15 lawyers
nationally, and only ones west of Bristol, awarded this specialist
qualification for asbestos disease litigation.

This accreditation scheme, running now for 15 years, confirms
lawyers have achieved a high standard of expertise, competence and
excellence in dealing with mesothelioma- and asbestos-related
disease litigation.

"James and John should be congratulated as applicants must prove
themselves before becoming accredited," said APIL president John
Spencer.

"People who have sustained injuries because someone else did not
take proper care are already vulnerable, especially so when
asbestos has been involved.

"The APIL accreditation shows who they can trust and who is an
expert in this specialised area of law."

Mr Walsh and Mr Messham have also been appointed as national
assessors by APIL to examine and assess lawyers in other firms
wanting to obtain the accreditation.

This involves a detailed audit and examination of applicants'
skill in asbestos litigation.

Mr Walsh and Mr Messham have more than 50 years of combined
experience dealing with asbestos-related litigation, and have
dealt with hundreds of cases, recovering millions of pounds for
sufferers of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.

"Our asbestos disease team has grown in the past decade," said Mr
Walsh. "John and I are proud to achieve this national recognition
and will continue to offer clients and their families the care and
support they deserve."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Swiss Billionaire Wins Fibro Court Battle
----------------------------------------------------------
Tatiana Serafin, writing for Forbes, reported that billionaire
Stephan Schmidheiny was acquitted of complicity in 3,000 deaths
related to the use of asbestos in factories formerly part of his
chemicals empire, Eternit.  Italy's Supreme Court overturned a
ruling which sentenced the Swiss entrepreneur to 18 years in
prison stating the evidence in the case was out of date.

Schmidheiny had been fighting the case which wound its way through
the Italian court system for years. In 2012, he was jailed in
absentia for 16 years, a sentence that was raised by an appeals
court to 18 years in 2013. Throughout the case, Schmidheiny who
avoids the limelight, denied the charges stating once the perils
of asbestos were known, he sold out of the business and was not
running the factory during the period claimed in the deaths.

"My group was heading toward bankruptcy as a consequence of the
combined effects of asbestos-related problems and a major slump in
construction markets. Thus I built my group virtually from
scratch," he wrote to Forbes in 2009 for a feature story.

Shmidheiny inherited the Eternit Group when he was 37 as the
fourth generation of a Swiss industrial dynasty. Before he took
full control, he had worked around the globe for his family's
Eternit Group, which manufactured a line of construction products
that had begun in 1903 with asbestos-reinforced cement. At age 29,
after toying with the idea to become a missionary, studying law
and travelling abroad, he was called back to headquarters. That is
when he began to face the company's asbestos concerns. Schmidheiny
had filters installed at Eternit factories to reduce dust in the
air, beefed up employee training and began to move the company
away from asbestos-based products. He notes that he himself was
exposed to the mineral while working in his early 20s hauling
sacks as a shift foreman at Eternit in Brazil. When Schmidheiny
took full control of the company, he sold off most asbestos
operations and diversified into other ventures, including the
Latin American investment holding company, GrupoNueva, and the
then ailing watch firm Swatch. (He sold off his Swatch shares
after it recovered.)

In 2003 Schmidheiny focused more on his burgeoning philanthropic
efforts. He placed $1 billion in business assets, including
GrupoNueva, into a charitable trust, which its profits annually to
help entrepreneurs across both Central and South America. In a
2012 interview with Forbes he said, "In keeping with the family
tradition, my charitable activities first began in Switzerland
where we supported -- and continue to support -- a broad range of
activities e.g. in the field of conservation of the cultural
heritage, protecting women's and children's rights, protection of
the environment, to name just a few. In 1992 I had an experience
as the founder of the Business Council for Sustainable Development
around the UN conference of Rio that profoundly changed my outlook
on life. Thus, I greatly expanded my philanthropic endeavors and
put a major emphasis on promoting sustainable forms of development
in Latin America."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kilgore College to Hire Firm to Test for Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Ortigo, writing for News Journal, reported that Kilgore
College is working with a contractor to perform air quality tests
in several buildings on campus following asbestos violation
allegations from one of its employees, officials said.

College spokesman Chris Craddock admitted that the school has had
its own unlicensed workers, including Maintenance Supervisor Rick
Murphy, perform "very small" asbestos abatement procedures.

"We're working to hire ERI Consulting Inc. out of Tyler to
reassure everybody since you ran the article in the newspaper,"
Craddock told the News-Journal. "Dr. (Bill) Holda is having to
hire them, for sure to test Dodson Auditorium and other buildings
you named in the article."

College Facilities Director Dalton Smith, a 14-year employee, said
thousands of people have been exposed to improperly handled
asbestos in the Randolph C. Watson Library, Rangerette gym, Stark
Hall and the Quads dormitories and Dodson Auditorium. Smith and
Kilgore College trustee Carlos "Scooter" Griffin each said they
have been questioned by federal investigators.

"It's going to cost $2,020 just for Dodson Auditorium," Craddock
said.

College President Bill Holda said in an email to the college's
faculty and staff that the allegations of a federal investigation
are not true.

"The college has not been informed of, nor is it aware of any
investigation, federal or otherwise, of asbestos violations on our
campuses," Holda wrote in the email.

Holda sent a separate email to Kilgore College trustees in which
he wrote that two board members and a college employee had been
interviewed by federal investigators regarding asbestos
violations. That email was obtained by the News-Journal from an
anonymous source.

"Two of our board members, Brian Nutt and Carlos Griffin, notified
James Walker and Will Roberson that they were interviewed in a
criminal investigation into asbestos issues related to the removal
of the house in Longview," Holda wrote in the email to trustees.
"One of our employees, Dalton Smith, said he was interviewed by
individuals who identified themselves as agents for the FBI and
EPA."

Holda also said in that email that the college is unaware of a
federal investigation.

"Kilgore College has not been formally or informally contacted by
any agency," he wrote. "Despite not being informed of the
investigation, nor being provided the name or contact information
for any purported officer nor the case number, we have tried to
reach out to the Dallas office of the EPA and FBI and the Texas
Department of State Health Services to state our willingness to
cooperate with any authorized investigation."

Smith said he went to federal investigators to inform them of what
he called the college administration's years-long effort to cover
up the situation, apparently to save time and avoid costly and
lengthy abatement procedures.

Smith made the situation public, he said, after being ordered by
his supervisor, Director of Special Projects Dan Beach, to cover
up the carcinogenic material's existence over the past few years.
Craddock said he has tried to reach out to Smith, but has not
received a response.

With regard to Smith's claims that unlicensed Kilgore College
employees have performed asbestos abatement in college buildings,
including Dodson Auditorium, Craddock said the employees do not
need a license to perform what he called "very small" asbestos
abatement procedures.

"Dan Beach said there are three levels of abatements, and for the
bottom level, Rick (Murphy) didn't have to be licensed," Craddock
said. "I don't know what defines a small job, but Dan Beach does."
Smith said he wouldn't classify the abatements as "very small."

"One was about a 14-foot-by-14-foot area," Smith said. "It wasn't
done right. Why put people at risk for nothing? It should have
been those people's choice at the auditorium that day if they
wanted to be put at risk, not the administration's. It's not in my
job requirement to put people at risk."

The News-Journal filed an open records request with Kilgore
College seeking all records pertaining to asbestos abatements
performed by licensed and non-licensed entities since 1997, air
quality test records performed on college property since 1997, a
listing of all employees who have undergone asbestos abatement
training since 1997 and a description and definition of each level
of asbestos abatement and the legal requirements related to each
level.

In 1997, the college had an asbestos survey performed by ERI
Consulting. It showed several areas of asbestos throughout Dodson
Auditorium and elsewhere on campus.

"We've spent millions upon millions of dollars on asbestos
abatements and treatments," Craddock said.

Smith said it doesn't matter how many legal abatements are done if
there also are smaller abatements done improperly that put people
at risk.

"My people didn't have the right gear, and we didn't dispose of it
in a licensed facility, and we didn't notify them it was asbestos
for them to protect the people," he said. "That's all against the
law."

Smith said training is required of workers who perform asbestos
abatements, and he said none of the employees have had the proper
training.

"Terry Huckaby is our safety guy, and his only training is a two-
day seminar on campus shooter safety, EPA peer audit training to
learn how to do audits at other colleges and hazmat to pick up
chemicals," Smith said. "Rick Murphy hasn't been to any training
in at least 15 years."

Craddock said he was unsure of the training obtained by Murphy or
Huckaby and referred those questions to Beach, who did not return
calls for comment.

A representative from the Texas Department of State Health
Services also did not respond to a request for training
requirements and proper procedures for the different level of
asbestos treatments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Victorian Schools Needs Urgent Removal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Farrah Tomazin, writing for The Age, reported that hundres of
schools in Victoria, Australia, contain asbestos, says a WorkSafe
audit, and immediate action must be taken to remove it.

Teachers and principals have made an election-eve plea for
asbestos to be fully removed from all Victorian schools after a
secret state government audit found some are so plagued with the
material that buildings need to be cordoned off or cleaned up
immediately.

In a warning sign for both major parties ahead the poll, documents
released under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws have found that
hundreds of schools contain asbestos, but some are so at risk the
department has been ordered to urgently remove it.

The audits were demanded by WorkSafe in order for the state to
avoid prosecution after asbestos was exposed in three schools
between 2012-13: Newlands Primary School, Clayton South Primary
School and Timboon P-12 College.

Of the 368 audits released, only 30 schools -- or 8 per cent --
were asbestos-free. The remaining 92 per cent contained asbestos,
and of those schools, five were in the highest risk category
(which requires the material to be cleaned up immediately); 72
were in the second-highest category (in which access must be
restricted and asbestos removed as soon as possible); and 255
schools were of medium risk (requiring schools to enclose or seal
the asbestos while removal plans are put in place).

The findings were withheld by the education department for months,
only to be released after the caretaker period began. But with
Asbestos Awareness Week, teachers and principals have called on
both major parties to remove all school buildings.

"We've always had the view that asbestos needs to be removed and
it is too much to expect principals to just know where the
asbestos is," said Meredith Peace, state president of the
Australian Education Union. "It's not good enough for governments
to expose staff and students to asbestos exposure when it is such
an occupational health and safety issue."

Asbestos was popularly used in buildings between the 1950s and
'70s, before the health risks were widely known. But even thoughit
is relatively safe when undisturbed, fibres that become airborne
can lead to diseases such as lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Schools have told The Sunday Age that managing asbestos tends to
be ad-hoc, with the material removed or sealed off in some cases,
but not having been properly addressed in others.

But the government has defended its efforts, saying concerns are
"immediately assessed on site by experts, and where necessary, the
asbestos is professionally removed".

"The Napthine Coalition government fully funds the emergency
management and removal of asbestos. Ongoing funding has increased
under the Napthine Coalition government to more than double what
Labor funded. This is on top of the $1.1 billion investment in
capital works during the current term, and includes asbestos
removal where necessary," a spokesman said.

Former Labor government policy adviser Andrew Herington, who
obtained the audits under FOI, said the amount of clean-up work
had declined significantly in recent years.

"Many issues could be resolved by removing the asbestos-containing
materials -- often old switchboards, heaters, cement flues and
fireproof safes. The bigger problem is to retire the old portables
that still have asbestos cement sheeting and other risks which are
no longer acceptable," he said.

The schools that prompted the audits were found to have
insufficient labelling or auditing practices. Timboon, for
instance -- which is located in Transport Minister Terry Mulder's
electorate -- was forced to shut down temporarily in July  when a
WorkSafe inspector issued two prohibition notices after finding
asbestos and peeling lead paint.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Docker Dies After Port Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Southern Daily Echo reported that a man from Southampton, England,
died after years working on the docks where "asbestos would shower
down on everyone like snow", an inquest heard.

John Milne, of Cornwall Road, who died aged 92, worked during the
60s as a stevedore at Southampton Docks loading and unloading
sacks filled with asbestos on the Union-Castle boats which
transported goods from South Africa.

Mr Milne died on September 7 at South-ampton General Hospital
after battling cancer for a number of years.

In a statement made to his solicitors for a compen-sation claim Mr
Milne said: "The asbestos had been put in hessian sacks.

"It was not uncommon for the sacks to hit the sides of the ship
and, because they were so tightly packed, the sacks would burst.

"The asbestos would shower down on everyone like snow and we would
be covered with a fine powder."

A verdict of death due to industrial disease was recorded.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hundon Man Dies of Fibro-related Illness
---------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge News reported that a man from Hundon, England, died
three months after being diagnosed with an asbestos-related
disease, an inquest has heard.

Alan Douglas, 78, of the village's Lower Road, died on October 14.
Mr Douglas initiatlly went to the GP in April complaining of
fatigue and weight loss.  In July, he was admitted to West Suffolk
Hospital for eight days while tests were carried out.

An inquest heard the pensioner was suffering from mesothelioma.
Mr Douglas had smoked for 30 years and previously worked near a
building site where asbestos was being removed.  Dr Dan
Sharpstone, assistant coroner for Suffolk, recorded that Mr
Douglas died from an industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal at Former School Slated for Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Russell, writing for MassLive.com, reported that the long-
awaited pollution cleanup expected to pave the way for economic
development at the former Belchertown State School, in
Massachusetts, was scheduled to start Dec. 1, according to
officials involved with the project.

The property is owned by Belchertown Economic Development
Industrial Corporation, a panel appointed by selectmen. The
corporation is working with the state agency MassDevelopment to
both remediate the property and market it.

Bay State Contracting of Springfield will remove asbestos debris
as part of a $40,800 contract, and their prep work is expected to
be completed before Christmas.  Engineers have mapped out a plan
to clean the property and money from a $10 million state bond will
pay for the work.

MassDevelopment says they have also "solicited bids for the
removal of asbestos-containing materials and demolition of six
buildings and selective tunnels on the site known as Pad 1,"
agency spokesman Mark Sternman said.

Grantham Group LLC of Boston plans to construct an 83-unit
assisted living facility on Pad 1.

Officials say about half of the units will be deemed "affordable."
They said the complex would create 40 permanent jobs and during
construction employ construction workers.

"The cleanup of the Belchertown State School site represents a key
milestone along the redevelopment path. I look forward to work on
this important project proceeding through the winter and spring,"
MassDevelopment president and chief executive Marty Jones said in
a statement.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found at Saipan Airport
---------------------------------------------------
Alexie Villegas Zotomayor, writing for Marianas Variety, reported
that the discovery of asbestos at the Francisco C. Ada/Saipan
International Airport does not pose any risk to those working at
or transiting through the airport and the airport management has
taken a proactive approach in making sure that safety of all
airport users is upheld.

This was disclosed by Commonwealth Ports Authority Executive
Director Maryann Q. Lizama and CPA legal counsel Robert T. Torres
to Variety.  Variety was tipped off that asbestos was discovered
in the roof of the airport.  Torres confirmed that material
containing asbestos was found at the airport.

"The location where the ACM was found is in one area of the roof
not near the air vents or open air," he said.

Out of 16 areas that were tested, only one tested positive.

"They are doing more testing," said Torres.

Torres said the asbestos was discovered while the high roof
project was being undertaken at the airport. The construction
manager had a test for all materials and found one of the
substances is ACM in one area. They reported it.

Torres said CPA noted that it is a matter of public concern and
this was the reason they gathered all stakeholders and revealed to
them the studies made in the interests of transparency.  But
Torres pointed out that the industrial hygienist hired to look
into this issued a clean bill of health for the airport.  Torres
said the hygienist cleared the airport of any risk or harm or
threat to airport employees or the traveling public.

CPA Executive Director Maryann Q. Lizama affirmed that the airport
management has been taking this seriously.

"We are treating this as a priority and we are addressing it," she
said.

She also said the asbestos-containing material found at the
airport, "is not friable."

Online sources explain that friable ACM is any material that
contains more than one percent asbestos by weight or area
depending on whether it is a bulk or sheet material and can be
crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by the pressure of an
ordinary human hand.

On the other hand, non-friable ACM is any material that contains
more than one percent asbestos but cannot be pulverized under hand
pressure.

"If the asbestos containing material can be easily disturbed and
become air borne -- by the effect of a breeze or simply creating a
breeze by walking past it -- it is in a friable state," online
sources say.

This is the hazardous type.

Lizama said, "There is no cause for alarm."

In a memo sent my Lizama to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's
Rene Masculino on Nov. 16, she reported that CPA had taken
corrective action and still continues to do so.

"In an effort to determine the existence and extent of potential
asbestos-containing material, 16 materials were identified as
suspected ACM in June 2014. One asphaltic roofing material in
Phase 2B area was found to contain 3 to 4 percent chrysotile
asbestos," she said.

Wikipedia says chrysotile or white asbestos is the most commonly
encountered form of asbestos accounting for approximately 95
percent of asbestos in place in the United States.

Lizama also said in the Nov. 16 memo that a previous memorandum
was issued on Oct. 14 to CPA employees, airport tenants and GPPC
Inc. providing an introduction to asbestos regulations, abatement
and monitoring processes and answers to anticipated questions.

She also disclosed that on Nov. 14, nine additional samples were
collected "to further delineate the ACM in the Phase 2B area and
to determine the presence of ACM in other similar locations in the
rooftop construction areas."

She said that these areas are undisturbed by the construction
contractor to date.

Moreover, Lizama also revealed to Variety that CPA retained the
services of industrial hygienist Myounghee Noh & Associates LLC
based in Los Angeles to identify potential ACM's in support of the
roof drainage and air-conditioning improvement project at the
airport.

MNA collected 16 samples on May 17: old roof, 6 materials; Phase
1A, 5; Phase 1B, 2 and Phase 2B, 3.

According to principal Myouunghee Noh, in an Aug. 5 letter, all
samples were analyzed and one of the 16 materials contain 3 to 4
percent asbestos.

"This ACM is the asphaltic roofing material in the Phase 2B area.
No measurable levels of asbestos were found in the remaining 15
materials," Noh said.

The industrial hygienist gathered samples at the airport on June
18.

On Oct. 28, CPA informed its employees and tenants and GPPC Inc.
of the presence of asbestos in the west corridor roof and
suspected areas along the parapet walls of the Roof Drainage and
air-conditioning improvement project.

Lizama, in this memo, said that CPA was conducting an ongoing
building survey to identify and safely manage the previously
installed ACM on the roof.

"The current renovation of the roof is being carefully reviewed to
ensure that no ACMs are disturbed without proper safeguards," said
Lizama adding that the removal of the material is restricted to
trained and qualified persons only.

CPA said that a workshop would be conducted for airport tenants,
employees and contractors.

"CPA is committed to a policy of safely and effectively managing
asbestos on the premise. We have maintained certified
professionals at SSFM CNMI LLC who will conduct the building
material surveys, coordinate and supervise asbestos construction
activities, perform air monitoring, if needed, and provide
training," she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas SC Agrees to Rehear Fibro Case v. Dow
------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Tennissen, writing for The Southeast Texas Record,
reported that the Texas Supreme Court has set a date for oral
arguments in the rehearing of an asbestos case against The Dow
Chemical Co.

The case deals with the question of whether a premises defendant
is liable for a contract employee's exposure to asbestos.  It
originated in the Dallas County 160th District Court, and resulted
in a jury verdict of $2.64 million against Dow.

When the company appealed, the jury verdict reversed in Dow's
favor in February 2013.  The plaintiffs want the case reheard, and
on Nov. 21 the Texas Supreme Court granted the motion and set oral
arguments for Jan. 14.

Case background

Back in 1967, Robert Wayne Henderson worked at Dow's Freeport
facility as a contractor for Win-Way Industries Inc.

Win-Way workers were installing asbestos-containing insulation on
pipes, while a few feet away Dow employees were tearing off old
pipe insulation and installing new insulation.

Henderson contracted mesothelioma and died, which his family
blames on the asbestos exposure at the Dow facility. The family
sued Dow, Alcoa Inc., Crane Co. and Hercules Inc.

They argued Henderson's asbestos exposure did not come from the
work he was doing for Win-Way, but from the asbestos dust released
by the work of the Dow employees being done within feet of his
work area.

Chapter 95 arguments

After the case was filed in Dallas County, it was transferred to
the Asbestos MDL in Harris County for pretrial proceedings.

In response to the suit, Dow argued that the claims against it
were barred by Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code.

Chapter 95 states that a property owner is not liable for personal
injury, death or property damage to a contractor or an employee of
a contractor unless it 1) retains control over the work, other
than the right to order the work to start or stop or inspect
progress, and 2) that the property owner had actual knowledge of
the danger.

The MDL pretrial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dow on
the claims that Henderson "was injured by exposure to respirable
asbestos as the result of the activities of (Mr. Henderson) and/or
the activities of (Mr. Henderson's) employer on any premises of
(Dow)," and denied Dow's summary judgment motion on all other
claims, including "claims that (Mr. Henderson) was injured by
virtue of the activities of Dow employees."

Henderson's case then went back to Dallas County Judge Jim
Jordan's trial court, where a jury trial was held. The jury found
Dow negligent and attributed 30 percent of the responsibility for
Henderson's injuries to Dow. They returned a $2.64 million against
the company. The jury applied 70 percent of the blame to Alcoa
Inc.

Dow appealed, and argued that contrary to the MDL pretrial court's
ruling, Chapter 95 "does not distinguish between a property
owner's liability for exposure caused by the activities of
contractors and their employees on the one hand, and exposures
caused from its own employees' activities on the other."

The company claimed there was no evidence at trial that Dow had
both control over Henderson's work and actual knowledge of the
danger, which makes Chapter 95 apply to all of the claims against
Dow. In deposition, Henderson had said that he worked for a single
independent contractor and stated that Dow had no control over his
work.

But the family argued that Henderson was helping insulators by
mixing up insulation cement, while Dow employees were spending
eight to 10 hours per week within five to 10 feet of him tearing
off pipe insulation from steam lines and sawing and cutting block
insulation.

They claimed that Dow substantially contributed to Henderson's
injuries by exposing him to air at its premises contaminated with
asbestos dust and fibers due to the work of its employees, as
opposed to work that Henderson was on the premises to perform.
They said therefore Chapter 95 does not apply.

The family also argued that even if Chapter 95 does apply, Dow
"would still nonetheless have owed Mr. Henderson a duty, because
it exercised some control over the injury causing work since it
obviously had control of its own employees."

At trial, Dow requested a directed verdict and objected to
question No. 1 on the charge of the court, which instructed the
jury to "consider only the activities of the Dow Chemical
employees at Dow Chemical Co. facilities."

The question "incorrectly stated the law," Dow argued, because any
negligence claim regarding Henderson's exposure to asbestos at
Dow's Freeport facility was subject to Chapter 95.

Additionally, Dow requested jury instructions and questions
pertaining to Dow's "control over the manner in which the work was
performed" and Dow's "actual knowledge of the danger" to
Henderson. The trial court denied both of Dow's requests.

Following the trial, Dow sought a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict, but it was denied.

But when the company appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth District of Texas in Dallas found in favor of Dow on Feb. 8,
2013. It reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-
nothing judgment in favor of Dow.

Petition for review

The family submitted a petition for review to the Supreme Court,
which was denied May 2.

In a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 21, the
plaintiffs argued that there is a conflict between what the 5th
District Appellate Court ruled in the case, and what the 14th
District Appellate Court ruled in another (Oncor v Murillo).

"The Fifth Court in this case adopted a categorical rule of law
that Chapter 95 applies to bar a contractor's contemporaneous
negligent activity in a claim. . . .  In contrast, the Fourteenth
Court adopted the diametrically opposite rule of law based on
virtually identical fact and the same statutory language."

In short, the family argued, the conflict between the courts is
"irreconcilable" unless the Supreme Court intervenes to resolve
it.

Henderson's family is now seeking a rehearing, which the Texas
Supreme Court has granted.

The family is represented by Denyse F. Clancy, John Langdoc and
Christine Tamer of Baron & Budd PC in Dallas.

Dow is represented by Stephen G. Tipps, Amy Pharr Hefley, David P.
Herrick, Matthew Eagan and Macey Reasoner Stokes.

Trial Court Case No. DC10-007003
Appellate Case No. 05-11-01277-CV
Supreme Court Case No. 13-0175


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYU Shouldn't Get Defense in 9/11 Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Tess Hofmann, writing for Law360, reported that New York
University has been improperly receiving defense and
indemnification from Hudson Insurance Co. in suits arising from
injuries sustained during asbestos cleanup after the 9/11
terrorist attacks, the insurer has alleged in New Jersey federal
court.

Hudson said that due to a number of exclusions in its policies,
including pollution and terrorism clauses, the university is not
entitled to coverage. In the complaint, the insurer claimed it has
already paid "substantial sums" in place of other NYU insurers,
including defendants Greenwich Insurance Co. and Indian Harbor
Insurance Co.

In 2001, NYU became an additional insured under Hudson's primary
and excess policies with asbestos cleanup monitoring company
Consulting & Testing Services Inc., and the university began
tendering personal injury complaints related to its 9/11 cleanup
effort to Hudson.

The policies at issue in the complaint covered CTSI from August
2005 through August 2008. Hudson claimed that under these
policies, NYU is not entitled to defense for several reasons,
including that it had known about damage and bodily injury claims
before the policy kicked in.

In addition, Hudson said that the coverage requested by NYU is not
allowed under terrorism and pollution exclusions, as well as an
exclusion for injury arising from professional services or failure
to render professional services.

As an additional insured, NYU can only receive coverage related to
CTSI's actions for which it is being held vicariously liable, the
complaint said. In this case, Hudson claimed, the actions against
NYU are unrelated to CTSI's work, aside from certain unspecified
allegations brought under New York Labor Law.

The New York Labor Law claims are the only ones that Hudson
admitted it may be partially obligated to defend, in conjunction
with other insurers.

NYU was named as an additional insured on all insurance policies
carried by numerous contractors and subcontractors working on
NYU's cleanup effort. Hudson said that it entered into a cost-
sharing agreement with Greenwich and Indian on NYU's 9/11 cleanup
defense, and all insurers reserved their rights to demand
adjudication of their obligations under the agreement, a right
that Hudson is now exercising.

In addition to a declaration of its rights and reimbursement,
Hudson is demanding a jury trial.

CTSI, NYU and 10 anonymous insurers were also named as defendants
in the complaint.

Representatives for both sides did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Hudson is represented by Shaji M. Eapen of Morgan Law Firm.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The suit is Hudson Insurance Co. v. Greenwich Insurance Co. et al,
case number 2:14-cv-07326, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Alleges Fibro Cover-up at Michigan Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for the Detroit Free Press, reported that a
Dearborn Heights, Michigan, school district endangered students
and staff by falsifying a report and covering up past asbestos
contamination at two schools, according to explosive records filed
with a federal lawsuit.

Officials at Dearborn Heights Schools District No. 7 acknowledged
to the Detroit Free Press they made a mistake by using electric
sanders on vinyl tiles that contained asbestos, but insisted there
is no evidence asbestos was released into the air where it could
damage human health.

Nobody is alleging there is a current asbestos contamination
problem at either of the schools.

Custodian Theresa Ely was reprimanded by the district in 2013 and
again this year after complaining about district orders to use
sanding equipment to remove wax from the tiles, and for warning
co-workers their health was endangered when they did the work
without protective equipment at Annapolis High School in 2012 and
Madison Elementary School in 2011.

In disciplining Ely, district officials said the Michigan
Occupational Safety and Health Administration checked and found no
problems. Jeff Bartold, who was district superintendent until July
and is now the interim business manager, also cited a consultant's
report that gave Annapolis a clean bill of health.

But MIOSHA records show the agency fined the district $27,000 in
2013 for "serious" health and safety violations related to the
work on asbestos tiles at the two schools.

Also, the environmental consultant cited by the district, Don
Clayton of D&D Consulting, says he never inspected either school
for asbestos, and that he never wrote nor had any knowledge of the
report the district attributed to him.

Clayton told a MIOSHA investigator he suspects somebody in the
district doctored an earlier report Clayton wrote on a different
subject to forge a false report on the asbestos issue, records
show.

"I've never seen the length that this district has gone to cover
this up, from falsifying asbestos reports to issuing gag orders to
employees to not talk about an item that has grave health
concerns," said Robert Fetter, Ely's Detroit attorney.

Citations which MIOSHA issued against the school district on June
5, 2013, based on inspections conducted during May of that year,
cited the district for "serious" violations for allowing sanding
of floor tiles containing asbestos, for failing to give employees
proper training, and for failing to conduct initial monitoring of
"employees who were or may have been reasonably expected to be
exposed to airborne concentrations of asbestos at or above the ...
permissible exposure limit."

MIOSHA initially assessed fines totaling about $27,000, which were
later reduced to about $9,000, Fetter said.

Ely, who in a separate MIOSHA complaint alleges she was retaliated
against when the district laid her off for the summer of 2013,
said about 20 workers likely were exposed but only she and one
other worker who complained have been tested, and the district
hasn't even paid for those tests.

The suit, assigned to U.S. District Judge David Lawson in Detroit,
alleges that last year a kitchen employee at Annapolis died of
mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Labor Vows to Remove Fibro From Victoria Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Willingham and Vanessa Desloires, writing for The Age,
reported that asbestos in 1200 state schools in Victoria,
Australia, would be removed by 2020 under an "ambitious" $100
million Labor Party plan.

Again visiting a marginal sand-belt seat, Opposition Leader Daniel
Andrews made a pitch to parents, vowing to conduct a full audit of
state government schools to identify asbestos and remove it.

The Sunday Age reported that teachers and principals had made an
election-eve plea for asbestos to be fully removed from all
schools after a secret state government audit found some are so
plagued with the material that buildings need to be cordoned off
or cleaned up immediately.

Of the 368 audits released, only 30 schools were asbestos-free.

Under Mr Andrews' plan, $50 million would be spent on audits and
removing asbestos that posed an immediate risk to students and
teachers.

Another $50 million would be spent to accelerate the retirement
and replacement of 250 old portable classrooms which are not part
of Labor's $510 million capital works program already outlined.

Labor conceded it was an "ambitious target" and that $100 million
was a down payment for the first stage.  Labor education spokesman
James Merlino said the Napthine government had dropped the ball on
asbestos in schools over the past four years.

"What kind of message does it send to parents and to school
communities that you have stickers across our school buildings,
across Victoria, saying there is deadly asbestos and then do
nothing about it?" Mr Merlino said.

But the Coalition said the plan was an under-costed hoax and Mr
Andrews did not understand the facts.

"If 'Dodgy Dan' had proper costings, he would know that the cost
of removing asbestos from schools is closer to $1 billion than
$100 million," a Coalition spokesman said.

"If he did his homework he would know that there are hundreds of
audits of schools, and under this government funding for asbestos
removal has more than doubled."

The government said schools had asbestos management plans and
conducted three-monthly checks, with training provided to key
staff.

Victorian Principals Association president Gabrielle Leigh
welcomed the announcement, and said principals would be pleased a
government would finally take responsibility for asbestos in
schools.

"I'm hoping $100 million actually covers it. We've been calling on
the government about asbestos and asbestos labelling and how
schools need support for this," she said.

Ms Leigh said schools didn't have the resources to properly deal
with the problem.

Oakleigh Primary School and Kindergarten would be one of the
beneficiaries of the funding.  Principal Jack Fisher said the
asbestos had to be constantly monitored in case of damage.

"This has been an ongoing issue for many decades," he said.

Mr Fisher said removing asbestos in government schools was just
the tip of the iceberg.

"I'm conscious of the fact that asbestos is most likely in a
number of public buildings, including early childhood centres,
kindergartens, independent schools, community centres and other
government buildings," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Vows to Fight James Hardie Payout Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the Australian Council of Trade Unions
(ACTU) is vowing to take legal action against any moves by James
Hardie to compensate asbestos victims by instalments.

Earlier this year, the building materials company advised the
stock exchange that the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF)
was facing a $184 million shortfall in funding by 2017.

The company announced plans to pay victims in instalments rather
than lump sums.

ACTU secretary Dave Oliver said the union would fight any
application the company made to do so.

"We will intervene in any court proceedings to ensure that
compensation to be paid to asbestos victims will be paid in full,
and we will oppose any application to pay in instalments," Mr
Oliver said.

Karen Banton, the widow of asbestos victim Bernie Banton, said she
would fight "tooth and nail" to prevent instalments from
happening.

"These people have had their lives just torn apart anyway, and to
be meted out money just willy nilly by piecemeal, is just not good
enough," Mrs Banton said.

Mr Oliver said the company's stance was insulting to the victims.

"On average there's 150 days between diagnosis and death of
asbestos-related diseases, particularly mesothelioma, and that was
why we took the battle on seven years ago, to ensure that people
would get their money in a timely matter," he said.

"The reality is asbestos victims don't die in instalments,
therefore the payments shouldn't be made in instalments."

Asbestos claims on the rise

Under a compensation deal reached with victims' representatives
and the NSW government in 2004, James Hardie was required to make
annual capped payments of 35 per cent of their net operating cash
flow to the AICF.

Since its formation, the fund has settled almost 4,000 claims and
paid out almost $800 million to asbestos victims.  But in early
November, James Hardie said asbestos-related claims were growing
at a faster-than-expected rate.  The company reported in its 2015
first-half results that claims were five per cent higher than for
the corresponding six months last year, while the second quarter
claims were 12 per cent higher year-on-year.  James Hardie's last
payment to the fund was US$113 million in July this year -- the
required 35 per cent of the company's free cash flow.

Mr Oliver said while it was unfortunate there had been a higher-
than-expected demand on the AICF, the company was "in a position
to top up the fund".

"They've been highly profitable over the last couple of years," Mr
Oliver said.

"There's questions about whether they're paying sufficient tax and
their CEO has a salary package of $11 million per annum, so James
Hardie has a moral obligation to ensure all victims are adequately
compensated in full and in a timely manner."

Mrs Banton said she was not surprised by the high number of people
making claims.

"We haven't reached the peak yet, and quite frankly I don't think
anyone's quite sure when we'll reach the peak, it just keeps
getting pushed out further and further," she said.

"James Hardie need to make an ex-gratia payment to the fund to
rectify the situation and we need the Federal Government to come
to the party as well, so that some more money can be made
available to the loan facility."

Mr Oliver also called on the Government to intervene until the
matter had been heard by the court.

"We also want to call on both the state and federal governments in
the meantime . . . to ensure they can provide a loan facility to
ensure that every victim will be adequately compensated."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roads Closed Amid Fibro Fears From Barn Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shropshire Star reported that cows in the barn at Wall Farm in
Kynnersley, near Telford, England, were moved to safety before the
fire took hold of the barn, which contained with hay and straw.

Firefighters were at the scene for several hours battling to bring
the blaze under control. Witnesses reported seeing huge flames
coming from the farm from several miles away.

Roads covering a mile radius from the farm were closed after fears
were raised about asbestos fibres from the barn's roof entering
the air.

Farmers Neil and Stephanie Dobson, who have lived and worked at
the site for more than 40 years, have spoken of their "sheer
relief" that no-one was hurt and neither were any of the cattle
that had been inside the barn.  They said it was only the second
fire they had had at the farm over the past four decades.

Eight fire crews from across the county were sent to the farm
after the open-sided barn was engulfed in flames.  The cause of
the fire is not yet known.

Mrs Dobson said: "It was very unpleasant and upsetting but the
main thing is that no-one was hurt and that we managed to get the
cows that were in the barn to safety.

"It is a great loss of hay and that is an expensive loss but it
could have been much worse.

"As the fire broke out during the day we were able to move the
Aberdeen Angus cattle that were in there to safety.

"The fire broke out in the central barn and the firefighters
managed to contain it to that area. Luckily, it didn't spread to
any of the adjacent buildings."

The barn measured 60 metres by 40 metres, and contained 2,000
cubic metres of straw, according to firefighters

Crews used one main jet, two hose reel jets and two breathing
apparatus to protect nearby buildings.

Speaking at the scene, a spokesman for Shropshire Fire and Rescue
Service said: "The public cannot get within a mile of the barn
because of the asbestos roof. Firefighters wearing breathing
apparatus are tackling the blaze and we are asking motorists to
turn around on the approach to the barn."

One resident, who lives near to Wall Farm and did not wish to be
named, said: "Huge flames could be seen from the farm as I was
driving home from work.

"When I got into Kynnersley the police had closed the road leading
to it and we heard that it had also been blocked off from the
other side.

"The farmers must be very distressed. Hopefully no-one has been
hurt."

Another resident added: "It was very dramatic. We could see the
flames on the horizon and a couple of fire engines went by. So
glad to hear that no-one has been hurt."

Two years ago, a couple and their two young children were forced
to flee in their nightclothes when a huge blaze engulfed their
19th century farmhouse, also near Kynnersley.

Chris and Helen Holman were woken by smoke alarms at about 2am and
managed to rush their boys, aged three and 18 months, to safety.
They all escaped unharmed as flames tore through their Buttery
Farm home, near Wall Farm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined for Potential Fibro Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Health and Safety Executive reported that a contractor in County
Durham, England, has been sentenced after illegally removing
asbestos from a garage, putting himself, other workers and the
householder at risk of exposure.

John Simpson, trading as Dun N Dusted and offering waste removal
services, was paid GBP900 by a householder to remove asbestos from
a garage under his house in Jesmond, Newcastle. He had told the
owner he was licensed to remove the dangerous material despite not
being so.

On 25 April 2013, Mr Simpson arrived at the property with two
other men. Working alone inside the garage and wearing paper
overalls and a face mask, Mr Simpson spent most of the afternoon
taking down the asbestos insulating board ceiling using a hammer
and chisel.

The other men then helped to bag the asbestos debris and loaded
some 20 bags into Mr Simpson's van, parked outside the house.

A neighbour, who was concerned about the way the work was carried
out, contacted the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).  Inspectors
stopped Mr Simpson undertaking any similar work by serving a
Prohibition Notice and investigated the incident.

Newcastle Magistrates' Court heard on Nov. 27 that HSE found that
Mr Simpson was neither qualified nor licensed to remove asbestos.

Mr Simpson failed to take suitable measures to prevent the spread
of potentially deadly asbestos fibres -- the debris had been
simply cleared up using a brush and a domestic vacuum cleaner
before being bagged and loaded into the van.

The court was told the nature of the work meant that it should
have been notified to HSE and that Mr Simpson had not carried out
any risk assessment nor identified the type of asbestos contained
in the garage. He had not prepared a written plan of work and the
equipment and clothing he used did not offer adequate protection
from exposure.

No air sampling had been carried out and Mr Simpson did not
produce a certificate for reoccupation once the work was complete.

John Simpson, 41, of Portland Avenue, Deneside, Seaham was fined a
total of GBP1,500 and ordered to pay GBP1,383 in costs after
pleading guilty to two breaches of the Control of Asbestos
Regulations 2012.

Speaking after the case HSE inspector Sal Brecken said: "Asbestos
is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK,
with some 4,500 deaths each year due to asbestos-related diseases,
as well as many serious illnesses.

"For this reason, work with asbestos requires a high degree of
regulatory control to ensure it is carried out safely. Mr Simpson
decided to ignore the fact an asbestos licence was required to
undertake this work and his actions not only put him at risk, but
also the householder and those working alongside him.

"Full compliance with asbestos legislation, in particular
licensing requirements, is absolutely essential. HSE will continue
to vigorously enforce the law to protect both workers and members
of the public from exposure to this deadly substance."

She added: "When sentencing Mr Simpson, the magistrates said they
considered this breach very serious and a custodial sentence was
strongly considered but due to it being his first health and
safety offence they decided to deal with it by way of a fine."

Information and advice about working safely with asbestos can be
found on the HSE website at www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family in Fight Over Fibro Tragedy Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Payne, writing for Manchester Evening News, reported that the
family family of a man who died following exposure to asbestos
could be awarded GBP175,000 after a court ruling -- but are facing
a fight to get the money.

Mum-of-two Doreen Heneghan, 77, said it was her husband James'
dying wish for the family to achieve victory in the courts.

The amount of damages has now been agreed at GBP175,000 -- but
High Court judge Mr Justice Jay is being asked to decide whether
six firms Mr Heneghan worked for are all jointly liable.  He died
aged 76 in January last year after contracting lung cancer.

The family's lawyers argued he was exposed to asbestos fibres at
work, which found their way onto his clothes and skin.  They
launched legal proceedings against six companies Mr Heneghan
worked for in the 1960s and 1970s.

Speaking from her home on Gloucester Road, Middleton, Mrs Heneghan
said the family had been on a 'traumatic' two-year journey to a
definitive court ruling.  Mrs Heneghan told the M.E.N.: "The past
two years have been been a traumatic ordeal for the whole family.

"It's been nearly two years since he died, and there are days when
you don't even think about it -- you can't let it play on your
mind everyday of your life, not for that long.

"But my son always said dad wanted us to get a result from this."

His son Carl, the executor of his estate and a professor at Oxford
University, continued the legal fight his father started when he
was still alive.

Remembering her husband as a 'wonderful man', an emotional Mrs
Heneghan said: "He was fit as a fiddle, right up until the day he
passed away.

"He bore his illness with great dignity -- he never complained,
never once moaned about it.

"We looked after him throughout it all and he died peacefully in
our home.

We were all very close to him and we miss him terribly."

Mr Heneghan worked on a number of sites, including Trafford Park,
Withington Hospital, an oil refinery in Carrington, Trafford, and
a hospital in Yorkshire during the 1960s and 70s.

During his retirement he was a keen golfer -- and acted as captain
and president of Blackley Golf Club.

Patrick Walsh from Manchester law firm, Slater & Gordon, said:"The
legal battle Mrs Heneghan and her son have undertaken is of vital
importance because this case will impact upon thousands of people
with work related cancer.

"We are though hopeful of a successful outcome for the Heneghans
and working people throughout the UK."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Experts Test for Fibro in Brisbane Homes
---------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Passmore, writing for The Courier-Mail, reported that new
controls on redevelopment of properties around two old asbestos
factories in Brisbane, Australia, will be considered if further
tests confirm the presence of potentially deadly dust in nearby
homes.

Officers from Workplace Health and Safety Queensland were
conducting air sampling in and around several properties where
independent tests commissioned by The Courier-Mail found asbestos
dust in the roof spaces.

Local residents are concerned that lethal fibres which may have
accumulated in house roof spaces during the 47 years the
Wunderlich plant operated at Gaythorne could be released into the
surrounding neighbourhood as old homes are demolished or removed
for new properties.

Local Government Minister David Crisafulli, who is heading an
inter-agency investigation into possible links to deaths and
illnesses, said the Government would not hesitate to act if
necessary.

"If there is a level of risk in the roof cavities, we will need to
look at a plan to deal with (redevelopment) in the radius," he
said.

The investigation is concentrating on a 1.5km radius around the
old Wunderlich plant and the site of a former James Hardie fibre
cement factory in Newstead.

"Certainly before Christmas, I would like a much clearer
indication of whether there is any risk and -- if there is -- how
we are going to deal with it,'' Mr Crisafulli said.

An initial scan of cancer registers found 20 cases of mesothelioma
since 1982 among people who were living within that 1.5km distance
of the sites when they were diagnosed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Delays Glasgow Art School Fire Fix
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glasgow Evening Times reported that the discovery of asbestos in
the Mackintosh Building of Glasgow School of Art, in Scotland, led
to a delay in installing a fire suppression system.

The system was not in place at the time of the disastrous fire in
May.

The delay formed part of a series of events that led to the blaze
which destroyed the Mackintosh Library and much of the west end of
the historic building.

School director Professor Tom Inns also revealed that students had
been told not to use expanding foam dispensed from canisters --
the substance which was set alight by electrics within a film
projector, leading to the blaze.

Professor Inns, who said no one was being disciplined for the
incident, said: "That is not something that should happen. It was
an accident and an error of judgment."

The official Scottish Fire and Rescue Service investigation report
confirms that the suppression system was not fully installed at
the building and was not operational on the day of the blaze in
May.  It also revealed that one unnamed person was assembling work
made from foam panels with one wall left blank to receive images
from a projector.

The person was filling in gaps between the foam panels by applying
foam directly from a canister when the flammable gases in the tin
were sprayed close to the projector and drawn into its cooling
fan.

The projector ignited the gases with its electrical components,
burned through the plastic of the projector and then lit the foam
walls behind it.

The report found that the fire's rapid progress through the
Charles Rennie Mackintosh designed-building was aided by timber-
lined walls and voids, and ventilation ducts running both
vertically and horizontally throughout the building.

It says "a fire suppression system, designed to enhance existing
fire protection measures, was being installed and was in the
latter stages of completion; at the time of the fire the system it
was not fully commissioned and was not operational."

The Glasgow School of Art has commissioned an external review of
its management of the critical incident.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfield Residents Fear Post-Storm Fibro Threat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Atfield, writing for The Age, reported that residents in
Fairfield, Australia, fear dried-out asbestos, which became
dislodged during a powerful storm, has dried out and become
airborne.  And they say Brisbane City Council had not acted on
calls before the potentially deadly substance began breaking up.

The southside suburb was one of the worst affected in the powerful
storm, which Premier Campbell Newman described as the biggest to
hit Brisbane in almost 30 years.

The damage bill was expected to top $100 million.

Brougham Street, Fairfield, resident Gavin Jacobi said the
material, which he and his neighbours believed to be asbestos, had
blown off the roof of an auto-repair garage across the road.

Mr Jacobi said he understood there had been a lot of damage across
Brisbane, which was taking up a lot of the emergency response
time, but asbestos should be treated as a priority.

"A whole crap-load of the stuff blew on to the road," he said.

"Everyone rang council and said 'Look, there's asbestos on the
road -- it's wet at the moment but when it dries out, things are
going to start to get nasty'.

"The council said they'd get on to it within an hour, and that was
[yesterday]. Now we've got powdered asbestos blowing through the
area here."

Mr Jacobi said asbestos posed a serious health threat and needed
to be dealt with.

"With asbestos, if we breathe the stuff in, who knows what will
happen 30 years down the road?" he said.

"There's so much traffic here, you can actually hear the crunching
of it breaking up."

Council crews arrived after Mr Jacobi had contacted Fairfax Media.

A council spokeswoman said its workers had been co-ordinating with
the Queensland Police Service to clear the area.

"As a precaution, some residents and businesses directly adjoining
the area where the materials are have been asked to temporarily
remain indoors while the clean-up works are undertaken," she said.

"Temporary traffic control is in place, with signage and direction
on site."

Brougham Street had been closed between the Fairfield Gardens
Shopping Centre and Mearns Street, the council spokeswoman said.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said people should immediately dampen
asbestos with water, and keep it wet, if they saw any of the
material among storm debris.

"We ask that if people are concerned about building materials that
may be asbestos, to please water it immediately, before contacting
council," he said.

"We will act as quickly as we possibly can, but I just ask people
to understand that there is an enormous clean-up task across the
city.

"Many homes across the city do still have asbestos in them, so if
people do observe building material that has been disturbed as a
result of the storm that could be asbestos, please report it so
that it can be investigated."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Sparks Fibro Fears at Edge Hill University
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Pattinson, writing for Liverpool Echo, reported that hundreds
of students and staff were evacuated from Edge Hill University, in
Lancashire, England, after a suspected fire sparked asbestos
fears.

Fire crews were called to the university's main campus on St
Helen's Road, Ormskirk, at just before 8.50am after smoke began
pouring from the basement.

The building was evacuated as the ground floor filled with smoke,
which firefighters believed was coming up through ducts and
venting into offices.

A specialist asbestos removal team arrived and set up a
decontamination unit as a precaution for fire fighters, as there
was asbestos in the basement where the smoke was coming from.

Four fire engines and a fire service Hazmat team were involved in
dealing with the incident, and the fire service went on to clear
the remaining university buildings as a precaution with a total of
300 staff, students and visitors evacuated.

Crews wearing breathing apparatus broke into the basement with
specialist tools and found that the smoke was coming from an
electrical junction box. The incident was dealt with by around
11am.

Fire service group manager Tony Crook said: "We attended an
incident involving an electrical junction box in the basement of
Edge Hill University.

"Four fire engines and a specialist hazardous materials unit were
called to deal with the incident as there was asbestos present in
the basement, and as a precautionary measure, the remaining
university blocks were evacuated.

"Four firefighters wearing breathing apparatus dealt with the
incident and so underwent on site decontamination which involved
de-robing and showering.

"There was good liaison between ourselves, university staff and
the asbestos specialist firm throughout, bringing about a
successful conclusion to the incident."

Despite the asbestos fears, it is not thought that there was any
danger to the public at any stage.

The fire service informed Lancashire County Council's emergency
planning officer of the incident, but did not have to declare
Operation Merlin, which is launched when they are dealing with a
chemical incident.

Lancashire police confirmed they were called in by the fire
service and provided assistance at the scene.

The four fire engines involved had left the university by around
12pm, and staff and students -- who were relocated in alternative
accommodation for around three hours during the incident -- were
allowed to return to the building.

An Edge Hill spokesman said: "A technical utilities issue was
experienced within the building at Edge Hill University which
resulted in a local evacuation in accordance with the established
management procedures.

"The technical issue has since been resolved and the building is
now operational. The evacuation affected a number of students,
staff and visitors for approximately 2-3 hours, however
alternative accommodation and facilities were provided which
enabled the university to function as usual during that time."

The incident comes the morning after Edge Hill was named
University of the Year in the 10th annual Times Higher Education
(THE) Awards.

The Ormskirk university was chosen as the winner from a list of
six shortlisted institutions.

Judges said it had "quietly established itself" and was improving
every year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
two companies face almost $380,000 in fines for allegedly exposing
employees to asbestos, putting them at risk of asbestosis and
other diseases linked to asbestos. The fines are related to the
demolition of an apartment building in Seattle, during which time
employees were exposed to asbestos and asbestos was reportedly not
properly disposed of.

The fines were announced by the U.S. Department of Labor &
Industries and were charged to Partners Construction Inc. and
Asbestos Construction Management Inc., both involved in the
demolition of the apartment building. In all, the department found
19 "willful and serious safety and health violations" between the
two companies.

According to the Department of Labor & Industries, the
investigation began after Partners Construction said it had
completed all work related to removing the asbestos. A complaint
was filed by an employee and the investigation found that more
than 5,000 square feet of ceiling that contained asbestos, and
asbestos vinyl flooring, had not been removed. The department then
decertified Partners, preventing them from finishing the asbestos
work.

At that point, a new company called Asbestos Construction
Management went in to finish the job. The Department of Labor &
Industries notes that this new company was owned by a family
member of the owner of Partners, had the same workers and used the
same equipment as Partners. Decertification action has reportedly
now been initiated against Asbestos Construction.

"Asbestos is an extremely hazardous material that can lead to
asbestosis, a potentially fatal disease, as well as mesothelioma
and lung cancer," the Department of Labor & Industries writes.
"Removal of asbestos-containing building materials must be done by
a certified abatement contractor who follows safety and health
rules to protect workers and the public from exposure to
asbestos."

A person who is linked to one of the companies told KOMO 4 News
that they are appealing the fines. The man told KOMO 4 News that
the asbestos that was found on-site was slated for removal.

Asbestos exposure can have devastating health effects, which is
why there are rules designed to protect people who work with it.
Health problems such as asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer
can develop decades after asbestos exposure. Lawsuits have been
filed by employees against employers and other companies they say
exposed them to asbestos without providing proper warnings or
protections.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bankrupt Co. Reaches Deal With Insurers
--------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that after nearly 14 years of litigation, a bankrupt insulation
company is requesting approval of a settlement agreement reached
with several AIG-related insurance companies that previously
issued policies for the defendant's asbestos liability in the tort
system.

Defendant Porter Hayden Company filed the motion requesting an
order approving its settlement agreement with the AIG-Related
insurers on Nov. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland.

Porter Hayden is a Maryland corporation that was formed in 1966
when H.W. Porter Company merged with Reid-Hayden, Inc. The company
sold and installed insulation products, some of which contained
asbestos prior to the early 1970s.

The AIG-Related insurers involved in this case issued a total of
eight primary and excess liability insurance policies to Porter
Hayden.

In December 2000, the defendant filed a coverage action in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City in regards to plaintiff National
Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh's obligation to provide Porter
Hayden with a defense under two of the insurer's primary policies.

Then Porter Hayden filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
March 2002. After more than four years of bankruptcy litigation,
the court confirmed the debtor's Third Amended Plan of
Reorganization in July 2006, allowing the creation of Porter
Hayden's asbestos personal injury trust.

Over the course of nearly 14 years of litigation, Porter Hayden
and the insurers disputed how the policies would apply to
liabilities assumed by the trust. A trial for the insurance issues
had previously been scheduled for Jan. 15.

Porter Hayden claims that it has resolved the disputes with the
insurers and entered into a settlement agreement.

According to the settlement agreement, the AIG-Related Insurers
will pay Porter Hayden $15 million for the insurance policies.

In exchange for the payout, Porter Hayden will sell its subject
policies to the insurers free and clear of all liens, claims and
interests. Therefore, Porter Hayden will forever release the AIG-
Related Insurers from any claims of liability for the subject
policies.

This form of settlement is common in the insurance industry,
Porter Hayden claims, and is known as a "buy-back" of the
insurance policies.

"Accordingly, Porter Hayden by this motion seeks approval of the
insurance buy-back as a sale of Porter Hayden's assets . . . free
and clear of liens, claims and encumbrances," the motion states.

The settlement agreement also contemplates an injunction to
protect the insurance settlements.

"The Supplemental Injunction enjoins anyone form taking legal
action for the purpose of directly or indirectly collecting,
recovering or receiving payment or recovery with respect to any
claim or demand that, under the plan is to be paid by the trust,"
the motion states.

"Thus, in exchange for making the settlement payment as full and
final satisfaction of all asserted liability for the Porter Hayden
Subject Insurance Policies, the AIG-Related Insurers will be
protected from any further claims or liabilities on those
policies," the defendant added.

Porter Hayden argues that while it is not possible to predict the
insurers' ability to pay their obligations in the future, the
settlement agreement provides a "substantial" amount of funds more
readily available for distribution to creditors under the plan.

The defendant also argues that the current and future asbestos
claimants' interests were represented in the settlement agreement,
and their representatives agree that the settlement is in the best
interests of the debtor and the claimants.

Porter Hayden explained that the asbestos claim will be paid by
estate assets, including proceeds of the settlement amount.

"The settlement agreement is fair and reasonable and in the best
interests of Porter Hayden, the trust and the trust
beneficiaries," the motion states. "The settlement agreement
represents fair and reasonable consideration for the sale of the
Porter Hayden Subject Policies, the release of certain claims and
the other provisions as set forth in the settlement agreement."

"The settlement agreement is also in the best interests of the
asbestos claimants because the proceeds of the sale shall be
available for distribution in accordance with the terms of the
plan and other plan documents," it continued.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure to Fibro Takes Its Toll on Rocky Man
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madeline McDonald, writing for The Morning Bulletin, reported that
Paul Fitzgerland from Rockhampton, Australia, never thought the
job he loved doing would cause him so much suffering 40 years
later.

In January this year, Mr Fitzgerald was diagnosed with the
asbestos-related disease, mesothelioma, as a result of the many
years he spent as an electrical contractor.

Mesothelioma is an aggressive form of cancer that affects the
lining of the lungs and abdomen. Cancer experts say 25,000 people
are expected to die from the disease over the next four decades.

And that's not hard to believe when one in three Australian homes
contains asbestos.

Mr Fitzgerald said working in construction meant he had a lot of
exposure to asbestos but never knew the risk.

"I did work on houses that had asbestos but back then it wasn't a
concern," he said.

"At some point I've inhaled the asbestos dust and it's retained in
my lungs.

"I don't know how long it was dormant for but people need to
understand the dangers of exposure.

"After I was diagnosed I started extensive chemotherapy. I'm
currently working with Maurice Blackburn Lawyers to gain
compensation because I had work cover back then but it's something
I never thought I'd need."

The 80-year-old wants to use his personal battle as a harsh
warning.

"People don't know how to dispose of it properly, I can't stress
enough how important it is to avoid exposure," he said.

"People need to be aware of the risk and use the correct safety
precautions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hull Docker's Family Wins Fibro Battle
-------------------------------------------------------
Allison Coggan, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that the
daughter of a former Hull dock worker and Second World War veteran
from England has been awarded a five-figure settlement from her
father's former employers after he was exposed to asbestos.

Father-of-two John Raymond Carter, who served as a Royal Navy
gunner during the war, died in November 2011 after a long battle
with illness. He was 91.

An inquest later confirmed he died of asbestosis, a disease caused
by exposure to asbestos.

His daughter, Jacqueline Hall, who gave up her work to care for
her father, has now been awarded an undisclosed settlement from
her father's previous employers Gillyott & Scott.

Mrs Hall, 55, said: "My dad was my life and I spent all of my time
with him. I did everything for him for the last three years of his
life.

"I am delighted we finally have justice for him and that those who
failed to protect him for asbestos exposure have been held to
account.

"It was so hard to see him suffer in the final months of his life
when simply getting up in the morning and getting dressed would
leave him exhausted.

"It was also heartbreaking to see him lose interest in football,
as I always remembered him being a passionate armchair manager."

Mr Carter, of Bilton Grange, was a dock worker at Gillyott & Scott
in the 1960s and 1970s, helping to load and unload sacks of
asbestos from cargo ships at the King George, Albert and Victoria
Docks in Hull.  He often loaded and unloaded hessian bags filled
with blue and grey asbestos, which was confirmed to be the cause
of his asbestosis.

Mrs Hall instructed lawyers to investigate whether more could have
been done to protect her father and limit his exposure to the
deadly material while working on the docks.

The financial settlement includes sums to cover her loss of
earnings and provide financial security.

Mrs Hall said: "No amount of money will ever replace the loss of
my dad and, since his death, I have been determined to honour his
name, so I am hugely relieved that this settlement has been
achieved.

"Hopefully, this settlement will highlight to employers the need
to protect people from exposure to asbestos, so other families do
not have to go through what we have."

Industrial disease lawyer Isobel Lovett, of Irwin Mitchell, said:
"This has been an extremely difficult time for Jacqueline, who has
fought determinedly and tirelessly to get justice for her father.

"During the course of his employment at Gillyott & Scott Limited,
John was exposed to asbestos as he loaded and unloaded huge sacks
of asbestos on and off of 'lighter' cargo barges at the company's
premises, for which, unfortunately, he paid the ultimate price.

"Employers have been well aware of the dangers of exposing their
staff to asbestos since as far back as the 1940s, so there is no
excuse for workers not to have been protected or warned of the
dangers of the dust.

"We hope this case serves as a reminder that negligence asbestos
exposure will not be tolerated."

Lung condition caused by prolonged exposure

ASBESTOSIS is a long-term lung condition caused by prolonged
exposure to asbestos.

Asbestos was widely used in construction in the past and can
release a fine dust that can damage the lungs over time.

Breathing in asbestos fibres may eventually scar the lungs and can
cause shortness of breath, a persistent cough, wheezing, extreme
tiredness and chest pain.

Most people diagnosed with asbestosis were exposed to fibres
decades ago before effective controls were in place.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Clean-up Bill for 2 Ships Could Top EUR1MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean O'Riordan, writing for Irish Times, reported that industry
insiders have estimated it could end up costing the taxpayer
around EUR1 million to remove asbestos from two Naval Service
vessels which were supposed to be free of the potentially lethal
substance.

Work to remove asbestos started on sister ships LE Ciara and LE
Orla on May 28, despite a consultancy firm giving them the all-
clear 14 years ago.

The firm has since closed, which means it is highly unlikely the
clean-up costs can be recouped. Ultimately the bill will fall to
the taxpayer.

The Defence Forces confirmed that work on removing asbestos from
the LE Ciara is now complete. It is expected the ship will become
operational in the coming weeks. The clean-up on LE Orla is still
ongoing.

The Defence Forces press office said it estimated that this will
be completed sometime in the next four months.

The press office said it would not be releasing the costs of the
clean-up while the work is ongoing.

However, industry sources say the bill could be anything up to
EUR14,000 a week, especially as asbestos has to be exported to
Germany as there are no suitable sites here capable of disposing
of it safely.

If these asbestos clean-up costs are accurate, it means the final
bill could be around EUR1 million.

The LE Aoife was found to have asbestos in a gasket in an engine
and the substance was also detected in LE Eithne's forward pump
room.

Both ships will undergo a further examination as part of a fleet-
wide asbestos survey ordered by Naval Service senior officers.

It is unlikely that asbestos will be found onboard the fleet's
newer ships as the substance was widely used in the 1980s in the
shipbuilding industry, especially in engine rooms to insulate
pipes and boilers.  At the time, it was considered the best and
most cost-effective insulating material and was also fire-
resistant.

Meanwhile, Siptu industrial organiser Jason Palmer said his
members -- civilian workers at the Naval base -- who were exposed
to asbestos on the vessels have all had medical screening.

This has also been completed for all Naval Service personnel who
were potentially in contact with the substance.  He said the
Department of Defence had confirmed it will put a plan in place to
ensure that ongoing screening will take place for them, as it can
take up to 40 years for asbestos symptoms to manifest themselves.

Mr Palmer said asbestos-awareness training had been completed by
union members on the base and some have already started a course
on the safe removal of the substance.

"Discussions are ongoing about getting the remainder trained in
that," Mr Palmer said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Seaham Man Illegally Removes Fibro From House
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Nichol, writing for ChronicleLive.com, reported that a
contractor from England has put lives at risk after illegally
removing asbestos from a garage ceiling.

John Simpson, who operates as a waste removal man, told the owner
of a house in High Heaton, Newcastle, he had a licence to remove
the dangerous material, which can cause deadly lung cancer,
mesothelioma, and asbestosis if inhaled.

But the 41-year-old had no such licence and failed to undertake
the necessary safety measures to stop the asbestos becoming
airborne, putting himself, his workers and residents at risk.

Newcastle Magistrates' Court heard Simpson, trading as Dun N
Dusted, quoted the Jesmond Park Court resident, whose home was
flooded during the 2012 Tyneside storm, GBP900 to remove an
asebestos insulating board ceiling in his garage, which usually
costs GBP3,000.

The removal of asbestos insulation is extremely dangerous, as it
can disturb asbestos fibres and make them airborne, and those who
do the work must have a licence and adhere to strict safety
regulations.

Magistrates heard that Simpson simply cleared-up debris using a
brush and a domestic vacuum cleaner before bagging it and loading
it into a van.

Sally Brecken, prosecuting, said: "Mr Simpson had not carried out
any risk assessment nor identified the type of asbestos contained
in the garage. He had not prepared a written plan of work and the
equipment and clothing he used did not offer adequate protection
from exposure.

"No air sampling had been carried out and Mr Simpson did not
produce a certificate for reoccupation once the work was
complete."

Regulations say a negative pressure enclosure should normally be
constructed around the asbestos site, which Simpson didn't do, and
workers must go into a decontamination unit afterwards.

Ms Brecken said: "The workers brushed their clothes off and washed
their hands and face with bottled water."

The court heard the masks used by Simpson and his workers were
also inadequate.

Ms Brecken said: "Those working with Mr Simpson, other workmen
entering the premises in the days after and the residents may have
inhaled asbestos fibres.

"We cannot at present state if anyone has been harmed but there's
a potential for them to be harmed."

She added: "Death or serious illness are a risk by this offence.
There's a considerable risk for harm to other workers and
residents. These are serious breaches, which carry a maximum
sentence of a jail term."

A neighbour, who was concerned about the way the work was carried
out on April 25 2013, contacted the Health and Safety Executive
and an investigation was launched,

Now, Simpson, of Portland Avenue, Deneside, Seaham, has been fined
GBP1,500, and ordered to pay GBP1,383, after pleading guilty to
two breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

Mike Simpson, mitigating, said Simpson had been naive.

He said: "He gave a quote based on the information given to him by
the resident over the phone. He should have visited the site with
someone qualified to see whether or not he could undertake this
work.

"He goes without that qualified person and he looks at the ceiling
and he believes its asbestos cement, which you don't need a
licence or specialist equipment to remove. He couldn't have been
more wrong.

"He didn't take the view "I shouldn't do this work but I will get
away with it". He was naive and thought he could legally undertake
the work."

Magistrates told Simpson, who has no previous convictions, he only
avoided prison as it was his first health and safety offence.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Worker Dies From Fibro Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Hall, writing for The Herts Advertiser, reported a
construction worker died from an asbestos-related disease after it
lay dormant until for around 30 years, a coroner ruled.

Gerald Martin, of Colney Heath Lane, in England, died at Peace
Hospice in Watford on October 22 after losing his battle with
epithelioid mesothelioma.

An inquest held at Hatfield Coroner's Court heard that he started
working in construction in 1949.

Senior Coroner for Herts Edward Thomas said during that time there
were lots of houses built with outhouses, which had roofs made of
corrugated asbestos sheets.

Gerald had to cut the sheets up using an electric saw which would
release dust into the atmosphere.

The inquest heard that he was not exposed to asbestos in any other
way and for about 25 years was healthy.  But at the start of this
year the 85 year old was found to be getting a bit breathless.
Following a scan in June doctors discovered shadowing on his
lungs.

Mr Thomas said: "The fact the first symptoms only showed in the
early part of this year is perfectly conclusive with what we know
about mesothelioma, it lies dormant and we don't see the symptoms.
Someone perfectly healthy doesn't get symptoms they may get them
as a chest infection."

He ruled the cause of death as industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homeowner Brings Landmark Case v. Gov't
--------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that a man from Australia who says he got
mesothelioma from exposure to "Mr Fluffy" loose-fill asbestos in
his home is bringing a landmark legal case against the
Commonwealth.

Chris Georgiou is suing the Federal Government in the New South
Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal, alleging it was negligent because it
failed to stop the installation of the Mr Fluffy product in homes
and failed to warn residents of the health dangers.

His lawyer said if successful, the case could pave the way for
many more claims.

Mr Georgiou, a retired jeweller, told the ABC he did not have a
safe at home, so he used to hide valuable items in his roof space.

"I didn't want to have them in the house. So I hid them in the
roof, on top of the fluffy asbestos," he said.

"I used to use a ladder or a chair and I would put my hand in. So
I was touching the asbestos."

Mr Georgiou also went into the roof space several times with his
son to install pink batts and aluminium foil.

"I was full of fluffy on my clothes, I had to change and put them
in the bin for washing," he said.

He worries that his son, who lives in America, might also get the
deadly cancer.

"It's a hidden sickness. I don't know how long it will take him to
know he's safe. How does he know he's safe?" Mr Georgiou said.

Do you know more about this story? Email investigations@abc.net.au
Mr Georgiou and his wife bought their house in the Canberra suburb
of Macgregor in 1978.

In 1992 the family moved out briefly while ACT Government
contractors removed the loose-fill asbestos.

Mr Georgiou sold the house, where he raised his four children, in
2003 and it was another decade before he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.  He suffers shortness of breath and has fluid on his
lungs, which must be drained regularly.

"It's devastating because since I retired and I sold the shop, I
had the best time -- the best time in my life," Mr Georgiou said.

"I retired. I make so many trips overseas. Now everything is
stopped."

Commonwealth warned of asbestos dangers

In a statement of claim, Mr Georgiou's lawyers said the
Commonwealth breached its duty of care to Mr Georgiou because it
was warned by a physicist in 1968 that asbestos insulation in
houses was dangerous.

"In mid-1968, the ACT Health Services Branch, then a Commonwealth
body, requested Mr Gersch Major, a physicist, to investigate the
possible hazards that might arise from the installation of
asbestos fibre insulation in houses in the ACT," the statement
read.

Mr Gersch inspected two houses in the ACT where the product was
being installed and noted: "The men doing the insulation work were
exposed to excessive asbestos dust and it was unwise for them to
be working with this material".

He added the Government should consider whether to stop Dirk
Jansen, the owner of the Mr Fluffy company, from operating.

According to the statement of claim, by the time the asbestos was
installed in Mr Georgiou's house (between 1975 and 1978) even more
knowledge was available about the health dangers of asbestos and
the fact that even relatively small exposures to asbestos could
cause mesothelioma.

It alleges the Commonwealth was negligent because it failed to
prevent Mr Jansen installing the product in homes and failed to
warn residents of the dangers.

"The Commonwealth knew, or ought to have known, of the risk of
harm to residents of houses such as the Macgregor house, including
the plaintiff, if it did not exercise its powers," the statement
read.

As a consequence, Mr Georgiou suffered malignant pleural
mesothelioma, shock, severe chest pain and breathlessness,
fatigue, nausea, weight loss and "imminent death".

Comcare, the Commonwealth agency handling the claim, has not yet
been required to file a statement in reply.

Test case among other Mr Fluffy incidents

Mr Georgiou's lawyer Theodora Ahilas, head of the asbestos
litigation unit at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, said his was an
important test case.

"Mr Georgiou is a robust 80-plus [year old] gentleman living his
golden years diagnosed with an insidious disease known as
mesothelioma, which is a disease which is only caused by asbestos
exposure," she said.

"Unfortunately there is no known threshold for exposure giving
rise to mesothelioma.

We've seen the beginning but I don't think we've seen the end of
this type of case.

"Any exposure to asbestos can give rise to mesothelioma."

She said the disease causes terrible pain and suffering.

"It is a cancer of the lining of the pleura. It is generally a
fatal condition. It is a preventable disease [and] we have the
highest incidence of it in the world," Ms Ahilas said.

"It's something that shouldn't have happened to Mr Georgiou or
anyone else."

Ms Ahilas said an increasing number of people were developing the
cancer after being exposed to asbestos in their homes, often
during renovations.

"It's a very important issue to address these days because as we
have more exposure to DIY home renovations, it's important to
identify that any exposure like this could give rise to a disease
like this in the future," she said.

"We currently have about four or five other people who have
contacted us, who want to be advised on personal injuries relating
to Mr Fluffy.

"We've seen the beginning but I don't think we've seen the end of
this type of case.

"I think there will be more people who will come forward with this
type of exposure."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Port Authority Won't Have to Pay for 9/11 Cleanup
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Strunsky, writing for NJ.com, reported that the Port
Authority will not have to pay 9/11-related environmental cleanup
costs for an apartment building near the World Trade Center after
the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the developer
of the building, which was contaminated with asbestos from the
twin towers' collapse, Reuters reported.

The developer, Cedar & Washington Associates, sued the Port
Authority and others under in 2008 under a law dealing with
environmental and health risks linked to industrial pollution,
seeking the cost of cleaning up asbestos, fiberglass and other
particles during a renovation of the 12-story building in lower
Manhattan.

Other defendants included United and American Airlines, whose
hijacked planes were crashed into the towers, plus World Trade
Center lease holder Larry Silverstein.

In May, a federal appeals court in New York ruled against Cedar &
Washington, concluding that the attacks were an act of war and
therefore the defendants were exempt from liability under the 1980
pollution law. Cedar & Washington asked the Supreme Court to
overturn the appellate court decision, but in refusing to hear the
case, the high court let the decision stand.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Halliburton Wants Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Jess Davis, writing for Law360, reported that Halliburton Co.
urged a Texas federal judge to dump a putative class action
alleging it artificially inflated its stock price by issuing
misstatements about its financial liability for asbestos claims,
saying there's no evidence the statements at issue had an actual
impact on the stock price.

In a daylong hearing before U.S. District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn,
Halliburton's expert testified that no matter how you crunch the
numbers under different statistical models, no piece of the
alleged misinformation at issue had a statistically significant
effect on the company's stock price.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MDL Judge Suggests Remanding Hundres of Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that the asbestos multidistrict litigation court recently
suggested remanding hundreds of asbestos cases back to the
district court for resolution of all matters, including punitive
damages for the first time.

Judge Eduardo Robreno filed the suggestion of remand on Nov. 24 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
sending roughly 200 maritime asbestos cases back to the Northern
District of Ohio.

These cases stand out from the numerous other cases previously
remanded form the asbestos MDL court because this is the first
time punitive damages have been remanded along with the asbestos
action.

In a July 9 opinion, Judge Robreno explained that when a case is
remanded, the court typically severs any claims for punitive or
exemplary damages and retains jurisdiction over these claims in
the MDL court.

Citing the Collins decision, Judge Robreno stated that "it is
responsible public policy to give priority to compensatory claims
over exemplary punitive damage windfalls; this prudent
conservation damage claims on remand."

Judge Robreno held that punitive damages were proper in maritime
asbestos cases in his July 9 opinion, concluding that punitive
damages are permitted as a matter of law to seamen bringing claims
of unseaworthiness in asbestos cases. However, the awards may be
subject to limitations under the specific circumstances of the
individual case.

He based his decision on the Jones Act and the Death on the High
Seas Act, which were passed by Congress in 1920 and expanded the
protections available to seamen and their families.

The Jones Act allowed seamen to bring negligence claims against
their employers, which was not permitted prior to the
legislation's enactment. It also allowed a seaman's personal
representative to file claims against the employer if the seaman
died as a result of his injuries.

The Death on the High Seas Act provided similar relief for
relatives of seamen who died as a result of his injuries by
allowing wrongful death and negligence claims.

However, Judge Robreno clarified that punitive damages awards are
not appropriate in wrongful death and survival actions, stressing
the importance of the chronology of the development of maritime
law. Therefore, punitive damages are not available to wrongful
death and survival actions that do not predate the Jones Act.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that a remedy for a seaman's
injury ends with his death unless a statute exists granting such
remedies for his wife or kin.

"Therefore," Judge Robreno wrote, "however unfair or anomalous,
the common law discrepancy in available remedies persists in the
area of punitive damages."

Judge Robreno rationalized punitive damages awards by arguing that
while the relief won't necessarily punish or deter asbestos
defendants from acting in "egregious" conduct because asbestos is
strictly regulated today, it could at least deter future reckless
conduct regarding a different risky product.

Citing the Sixth Circuit, he explained that "'whether a
defendant's particular course of conduct has ceased is irrelevant
to the accomplishment' of the broader general deterrence function
of punitive damages awards."

The asbestos MDL court is split into two separate dockets: the
land-based docket and the maritime docket, or MARDOC.

There are currently approximately 140 active land-based cases
pending in the MDL court after more than 600 land-based cases have
been remanded to 59 transferor districts.

As for the maritime docket, Judge Robreno explained in his July 9
opinion that prior to this order, he believes no cases had been
remanded to the transferor court since 2008, but he expects all
remaining cases to be closed or remanded in the "near future."

Furthermore, no claims for punitive damages have been severed or
retained by the court form the MARDOC docket. As a result,
punitive damages claims have proceeded along two separate tracks
according to each docket.

In the alternative to remand, Judge Robreno gave each party in the
cases seven days to consent to a trial date in the MDL court,
therefore vacating the suggestion to remand.

Judge Robreno also ordered all viable, non-bankrupt, defendants
who are not identified as a pending defendant in each case
dismissed from the respective case.

Upon remand to the district court, Judge Robreno stated that for
the most part, the cases are already prepared for trial once
included on the transferor court's docket.

Asbestos plaintiffs attorneys from the Motley Rice LLC law firm
represent the plaintiffs in these cases with co-counsel from The
Jaques Admiralty Law Firm, P.C.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Madison County Has 181 Trials Set This Week
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that as the end of the year approaches, there are approximately
181 asbestos cases scheduled for trial on Dec. 1 in a single
Madison County, Ill., courtroom, with only one claimant residing
in the local jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Evelyn Howland of Godfrey, who suffers from
mesothelioma, filed her claim in 2011. She represents about one
half of one percent of the total number of cases set for trial
this week. Howland is represented by the Simmons Hanly Conroy firm
in Alton.

Furthermore, it took roughly three years for that Howland to get
her case to trial while out-of-state claimants had a much shorter
process.

Asbestos defense attorney Kent Plotner of the Heyl Royster law
firm explained that a large number of cases set for trial at the
end of the year is not unusual.

Throughout the year, numerous asbestos cases with prior trial
settings are continued to a later date for several reasons, such
as issues with depositions or scheduling. As a result, the number
of cases set for trial at the end of the year stacks up.

Plotner added that it appears that a little more than 20 of the
181 cases are set for trial for the first time. The remaining
cases have been continued from previous dockets.

Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs, who presides over the Madison
County asbestos docket, will be responsible to manage the large
number of cases.

While he agreed the large number of cases is an added burden on
parties trying to prepare for trial, Plotner explains that
attorneys have already prepared for many of the continued cases --
making it easier to handle the larger number of cases on the
docket just after the Thanksgiving weekend.

Regardless, Plotner said the county has some work to do on
reducing the number of cases set for trial on the asbestos docket.

"We want to limit the number of cases set for any given trial
docket. But we are already looking at 2016," he said.

Last month, defense attorney Brian Huelsmann of HeplerBroom said
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. There were
already 256 first time trial settings for 2016 at the time.

This is all in a jurisdiction in which there are 30 trial dates
and 20 judges, only one of whom presides over the asbestos docket.

As for the 181 cases set for trial next week, 15 plaintiffs are
Illinois residents outside of Madison County.

Plaintiff Frank Casale of Puerto Rico, who suffers from
mesothelioma, would have to travel the farthest to attend a trial.
He is represented by the Simmons firm.

The vast majority of the claimants in the cases on docket claim
mesothelioma, with five claiming lung cancer and two citing an
"asbestos related disease."

At least 164 of the 181 claimants are represented by the Simmons
firm.

Gori Julian & Associates, P.C., represents at least three
claimants on the docket.

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, has a least three cases.

At least two cases are Manue Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC,
cases.

The O'Brien law firm represents at least one claimant.

Complete information on eight of the 181 cases was not immediately
available. However, it is known that none of the claimants in
those cases are Madison County residents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Finds Contractor Guilty of Fibro Felonies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Waterman, writing for MLive.com, reported that a federal
trial has ended with the general contractor hired to refurbish the
Bay City Academy charter school facility being convicted of four
counts related to illegal asbestos removal.

The jury on Dec. 2 found Roy C. Bradley Sr. guilty of four counts
of illegally distributing and handling asbestos, in violation of
the Clean Air Act. Bradley's codefendant, Gerald A. Essex, was
acquitted on the same four charges.

The charges are punishable by up to five years in federal prison
and a fine of $250,000.

Bradley's business, Lasting Impressions, was hired by entrepreneur
Steven J. Ingersoll to do renovations at the former church at 400
N. Madison Ave. and convert it into a school building for the Bay
City Academy. The church had largely been constructed in 1886.

The jury found that Bradley "fail(ed) to remove asbestos before
beginning to demolish and renovate the building, fail(ed) to
adequately wet and keep wet asbestos until proper disposal,
fail(ed) to ensure that a person trained in the proper procedures
for handling asbestos was on-site when asbestos was disturbed, and
fail(ed) to ensure that asbestos-containing waste was disposed of
properly," according to U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade.

"Contractors who fail to comply with clean air laws can expect to
face criminal prosecution as a consequence," McQuade said.
"Releasing asbestos poisons the air and harms human health."

A federal grand jury indicted Bradley and Essex in August 2013
following an investigation conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service. During the
grand jury's sessions, Bradley employee Rodolfo Rodriguez
testified and deliberately gave false testimony regarding how much
asbestos he removed and who directed him at the task, court
records show.

Excerpts of Rodriguez's testimony indicate he varied on how much
asbestos he removed, from 20 feet to 200 feet. He initially
maintained no one told him to remove the material and that he did
so on his own volition, but after being pressed by a grand juror,
he said Essex told him to gut the place.

Rodriguez in February 2014 pleaded guilty to one count of perjury
before a grand jury. "At Bradley's direction, and under Essex's
supervision, Rodriguez removed at least 200 feet of asbestos
insulation from pipes in the church so the pipes themselves could
be removed," his plea agreement states.

Rodriguez was subsequently sentenced to 21 months in prison.

Bradley, along with Ingersoll, their wives and Ingersoll's
brother, is also facing separate federal criminal charges due to
authorities alleging they participated in a complicated web of
illegal activities. According to the 14-page indictment, Ingersoll
in January 2011 obtained a $1.8 million construction line of
credit loan from Chemical Bank in Bay City for his endeavors with
Bay City Academy. Throughout the next few months, the Ingersolls
and Bradleys moved large sums of money between various business
and personal accounts and issued checks to one another, according
to the indictment.

Below is a listing of the charges against all five defendants.

*Steven Ingersoll -- three counts of fraud by wire, radio or
television; two counts of attempting to evade or defeat tax;
single counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States; and
attempt and conspiracy to commit fraud.

*Deborah Ingersoll -- one count of attempt and conspiracy to
commit fraud.

*Gayle Ingersoll -- single counts of fraud by wire, radio or
television; conspiracy to defraud the United States; and attempt
and conspiracy to commit fraud.

*Roy Bradley -- single counts of conspiracy to defraud the United
States and attempt and conspiracy to commit fraud.

*Tammy Bradley -- single counts of fraud by wire, radio or
television and attempt and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The most serious offense -- fraud by wire, television or radio --
is punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

The trial dates for the Ingersolls and Bradleys are pending.

U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington is scheduled to sentence
Roy Bradley on Thursday, March 12.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. House OKs More Time for Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the Illinois House has approved
a bill allowing more time to file a lawsuit over asbestos-related
disease.

The initiative was adopted 70-43 and moves to the Senate.

Rep. Elaine Nekritz is a Northbrook Democrat. Her bill would
remove a time limit for filing a civil action related to the use
of asbestos in building construction.

Asbestos was used widely as a fireproofing material into the
1970s. Exposure has been linked to the aggressive cancer called
mesothelioma.

Nekritz says the law currently limits legal action to 10 years
after a person has been exposed. But she says it takes 20 years
for mesothelioma to develop.

Opponents, overwhelmingly Republican, say the measure was too
broad, expanded liability too much and was anti-business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Program Addresses Libby Fibro Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lynnette Hintze, writing for Daily Inter Lake, reported that the
stark reality of life in Libby, Montana, is that the potential for
further exposure to asbestos is an ongoing risk.

There will be residents wanting to remodel homes in which asbestos
insulation has been sealed away and declared non-hazardous.

Buildings will be demolished from time to time, and excavation is
a given in any community where there will be growth and new
development.

Sometimes property owners inadvertently come across vermiculite on
their property.

To address this ongoing concern, a new public health program aimed
at reducing Libby area residents' exposure to asbestos has been
launched.

The Lincoln County Asbestos Resource Program was developed under
the guidance of the City-County Board of Health for Lincoln County
and is funded through a cooperative grant from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

The agencies wanted a pilot program that could become a long-term
management tool for reducing the risk of exposure to asbestos
communitywide, explained Nick Raines, program manager for the
Asbestos Resource Program. He came on board in May 2012 and spent
more than a year developing the program.

"We looked at other [similar] programs in the region," Raines
said, noting efforts in East Helena and Anaconda in Montana and
the Kellogg, Idaho, area, all of which have undergone reclamation
from past mining activity.

Raines spoke with community leaders of groups such as the
Community Action Group and Technical Advisory Group that are
involved in the asbestos aftermath.

"We did a lot of general community outreach," he said.
By mid-2013 the program was rolled out, and it now has three full-
time staffers. In addition to Raines there's an outreach and
education coordinator and a resource and initiative coordinator.

Raines said Board of Health members had two key concerns: They
wanted a program with flexibility that focused on evaluation and
evolution; and they wanted the program paid for by outside
funding.

"They didn't want county tax dollars supporting it," Raines said.
Right now the grant funding runs through 2016.

Eventually the EPA's cleanup work in the Libby area will come to
an end -- estimates are three to five years from now -- and the
goal was to have a program in place after the EPA is gone.

The Asbestos Resource Program is built on three pillars, including
education, resources and initiatives.

The education pillar involves speaking to community organizations
and service groups about what the program can do for local
residents regarding the risks associated to asbestos exposure and
how to reduce those risks.

Next month the staff will work with the Libby and Troy school
districts to bring the message to students.

The resources pillar gives residents the materials they need to
manage risk.

The program has taken over two programs that are critical for
reducing asbestos exposure in the future.

Ambient air monitoring in both Libby and Troy is now handled by
the Asbestos Resource Program. It monitors air at three fixed
locations in both cities.

"We felt it was important data to have long into the future,"
Raines said, explaining that the data can provide reassurance to
people wanting to relocate to the Libby area as well as local
residents.

An APR hot line (406-291-5335) is now the primary point of contact
for UDig calls in Lincoln County. Since the hot line began taking
calls in January it has handled roughly 700 UDig tickets and 90
other calls.

"This portion of the program is intended to provide property
owners with support when dealing with contaminated materials left
after cleanup," Raines said.

The initiatives pillar of the program will revise existing or
establish new ordinances and regulations, again for the purpose of
reducing or preventing the public's risk of exposure to asbestos.
One example would be incorporating asbestos risk information into
the building permit process.

The Asbestos Resource Program can be reached at (406) 283-2442 or
email lcarp@libby.org. More information is available online at
www.lcarp.com.

"We rely on people to remember to call us," Raines said. "There's
an opportunity to develop a program with long-lasting effects."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inspectors Arrested for Lying About Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Rizzi, writing for DNAInfo.com, reported that the
asbestos inspectors for Mount Manresa, in New York, were arrested
for filing paperwork that claimed the historic buildings had no
traces of the potentially deadly material, even though the
inspectors knew otherwise, prosecutors said.

Paul Santoro, 35, and his father, Gaspare Santoro, 74, had lab
reports that showed asbestos was found in several buildings on the
site, but still filed paperwork for demolition permits that said
the material was not present in three buildings, District Attorney
Dan Donovan said.

"The actions of these men violated the communities trust, and put
many residents in Fort Wadsworth at possible risk," Donovan said.

Investigators discovered lab reports in the Santoro's offices that
found Chrysotile -- the most commonly used form of white asbestos
-- at the site, Donovan said.

The Santoros later told police they did not even test pipe
insulation at Building 1A, even though they both knew asbestos
would likely be found inside. Later testing by the city found the
material in the pipes, Donovan said.

"We are not talking about people who lied on paperwork, we are
talking about people who put New Yorkers at risk," said Mark
Peters, commissioner of the Department of Investigations, which
helped with the investigation.

Donovan could not say if the developers, the Savo Brothers, knew
or were involved with the Santoros' falsification of the reports.

Earlier this year, the controversial sale of the former Jesuit
retreat house was finalized and crews started demolishing several
buildings to make way for condos.

After the DEP later found traces of asbestos in demolished
buildings, the site was hit with a stop work order in September
and a second one in October for continuing to do non asbestos
abatement work on the project.

The DEP issued $67,000 in fined for filing the false paperwork.

Donovan said investigators are currently looking at previous sites
the Santoros have done asbestos work to see if they're also
suspect.

Paul Santoro was charged with four counts of offering a false
instrument for filing at his arraignment, and his father was hit
with three counts.

If convicted, they could serve up to four years in prison for the
crime, Donovan said.

It wasn't immediately clear whether the Santoros had retained an
attorney.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Alabama Building
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Palmer, writing for TimesDaily.com, reported that city
officials in Florence, Alabama, could make a decision on when
to begin demolishing a derelict building to make way for municipal
court parking.

First, however, a specialist contractor will be needed to remove
asbestos from the structure.

"The question is, is it better to let the contractor remove the
asbestos and have the Street Department take it down, or let the
contractor do all of it," Mayor Mickey Haddock said.

The Ingram building is on South Seminary Street, adjacent to the
municipal court and detention center complex. The city bought it
for $110,000 earlier this year with the intent to provide
additional parking for the court complex. Haddock said they hope
to get at least 70 parking spaces on the lot.

City employees don't have the expertise or equipment to remove and
properly dispose of asbestos, Haddock said, so that portion of the
work will definitely be done by a qualified contractor.

Lack of parking has been a problem at the court complex for years.
People have used the Police Department parking lot across the
street, which creates problems for police parking and visitors on
police business finding a space.

Municipal court is in session on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with as
many as 400 people in attendance on Tuesdays, Municipal Judge Ben
Graves said.

"And, for every person in jail, you can expect family members to
visit them," Graves said.

"It's frustrating that there have not been other options, but I am
glad the city is making a move to relieve some of the stress on
people," he said. "It's hard to walk up and down that hill in the
cold and rain."

Haddock said a review of the Street Department's schedule will be
done before a decision is made about who will demolish the
building. Taking down the mostly metal building, which is in poor
condition, would cost about $25,000, he said.

"We would be pulling them (Street Department) off something else
if we use them," he said. "We will have to see what their schedule
is like."

The Police Department has taken the former C&H Engineers location
next door, and will eventually have additional parking for police
vehicles and employees there, Haddock said.

"That would allow the back side of the Police Department parking
lot to be used for court parking, as well," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Fined Over Fibro Waste Dump
----------------------------------------------------
Olivia Lambert, writing for The Border Mail, reported that a
construction company company and its director have been fined
$15,000 for allowing asbestos ridden demolition waste to be buried
on a property in North East, Australia.

Treham Pty Ltd was renovating a cottage at a Tatong residence in
October 2011 when the illegal dumping occurred.

When the Victorian Environment Protection Authority became aware
of it the same month, it summoned the company's director, Ross
Alexander McMahen, who denied the allegations.

A week later he admitted to burying the materials in a trench but
did not confess to a second trench until three months later when
he was contacted by the authority again.

Samples later confirmed the waste had been contaminated by
asbestos.

Treham Pty Ltd and McMahen appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates
Court where they were charged with dumping, depositing or
discarding industrial waste on land at the premises.

During the renovations, McMahen and property owner Ian Philip
Cuming were aware nearby pig pens to the cottage had roofs built
from asbestos.

Cuming agreed to have them removed as part of the renovation and
buried on the site.

The court heard the material was dumped in the two trenches after
Extons Pty Ltd was instructed to carry out the works by McMahen.

Extons Pty Ltd has not entered a plea and will appear in the
Benalla Magistrates Court on January 27.

Cuming was slapped with clean-up notices from the EPA, requesting
contaminated industrial waste be removed and disposed of.

The court heard the disposal of 337 tonnes of waste cost almost
$75,000.

He was also charged with one count of permitting to be dumped,
discarded or deposited industrial waste at the premises and was
fined $5000 without conviction when he fronted the Benalla
Magistrates Court on November 25.

McMahen was fined $5000 without conviction and Treham Pty Ltd was
convicted and fined $10,000.

EPA North East manager Clare Kiely said the incident would have
been avoided.

"Businesses and contractors need to discard waste appropriately,"
she said.

"The costs would have been substantially less had the waste been
disposed of appropriately, not to mention the stress on
individuals in being taken to court."

Pollution can be reported to EPA by phoning 1300 372 842 or
visiting epa.vic.gov.au.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Majority of New Ships Still Contain Toxic Dust
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Motorship reported that shipboard safety is one thing, but the
design and construction of ships has an inpact on shipyard safety,
particularly when ships containing potentially hazardous materials
need repair, according to John Chillingworth, senior vice
president of CTI Marine.

Asbestos may be perceived as a problem of the past however, this
is unfortunately not the case as it is still found on 85% of new
ships.

CTI Marine regularly performs pre delivery surveys on new builds
and finds asbestos in their construction. This is a global issue
because the material supply chain is global. The problem is mainly
caused because suppliers are only required to give a declaration
that an item is asbestos free and not provide a formal certificate
itemising material content. Over the years the issue of finding
asbestos on newer ships has prompted SOLAS to state that all ships
built after July 2002 should be asbestos free. The SOLAS
Convention acknowledges that the only accurate way to determine
this is by having an asbestos survey performed by an accredited
marine specialist who can issue a recognised certificate of
compliance.

CTI Marine is managed by former classification surveyors and has
offices in UK, Singapore, Shanghai and Atlanta. It is the only
company with the combined approval of GL/Lloyd's, Netherlands and
AMSA, to perform hazardous material inventories and asbestos
surveys on ships.

Some flag states, such as AMSA and the Netherlands, are tightening
up enforcement of SOLAS regulations by not accepting ships without
an approved asbestos survey. The Netherlands inspectorate states
that only marine experienced ISO 17020 companies can perform
acceptable surveys on Dutch flag ships.

In a recent situation an Australian charterer wanted to use a ship
built in 2012 with a GL asbestos free certificate based on a
survey performed by a GL approved hazardous material contractor,
however AMSA would not accept the survey as it was from a non-
approved AMSA survey company. CTI performed a new survey on the
ship in France and found asbestos in three locations, the asbestos
was removed for safe disposal and a certificate of compliance was
issued. On another 2012 built ship, for the same charterer,
asbestos was found in 14 locations, even though the ship had a
shipyard declaration stating the ship was asbestos free.

Asbestos fibres are harmful because they are small and can pass
through the body's natural filtration system, can be lodged inside
the lung, and because it does not dissolve asbestos can lead to
cancer forming between 15 and 30 years after exposure. It can be
found in flange gaskets, valves, machinery, deck and bulkhead
insulation, pipe lagging and electric cables, among other parts of
a ship.

Asbestos is still being used legally in some shipbuilding
countries, such as China, while the threshold of what constitutes
'asbestos-free' is different in various countries, e.g. zero
asbestos in Australia, 0.1 in most of Europe, 1.0 in the US and
'no official standard' in China.

The equipment and parts supply chain is multi layered and its
origin is not always clear when exported from China. Moreover, the
term 'asbestos-free' is only a declaration, and is not supported
by tests.

The company recently gave a presentation at DNV in Shanghai for 20
senior new build field surveyors. One surveyor voiced his concerns
that by accepting the shipyard's declaration that a ship is
asbestos free, which now has been proven to be unreliable,
surveyors may be exposing their reputation to criticism if a flag
state subsequently finds asbestos on the ship. CTI Marine believes
the shipyards are acting in good faith, but are being let down by
suppliers. The surveyors agreed that it was in all stakeholders'
interests to have an asbestos ship survey performed on new ships.
Owner and shipyard need to discuss independent accredited surveys
performed prior to delivery.

CTI Marine says that new ship stakeholders should be careful when
selecting a survey company and that there is a major difference
between ISO 17020 companies which are accredited for survey and an
ISO 17025 accreditation which covers only laboratory procedures.
CTI has both accreditations.

Both owner and yard benefit from a proper survey. The owner knows
the ship is compliant with SOLAS and all flag state requirements,
which eliminates any potential charter problems. The shipyard's
cost exposure is reduced, avoiding warranty costs, delivery delays
and penalty clauses. Other beneficiaries are equipment suppliers,
because if a survey does find asbestos it can be dealt with prior
to delivery, eliminating warranty and damage claims, while for
class societies the survey eliminates the potential embarrassment
of the ship's certificate being invalidated by a flag state
inspector. Perhaps the greatest benefits are to the shipyard
workers who can enjoy a safer working environment.

If all stake holders work together, new ships can be delivered
asbestos free. Build contracts should include a clause sating that
'asbestos-free' means 0%. A suitable clause, adapted from that of
a large ship management company, could read:

"Asbestos absence certificate to be issued by independent ISO
17020 accredited asbestos specialist. In event yard does not
agree, owners have the right to employ a specialist whose result
will be binding. In case asbestos is found, yard will bear full
costs incurred for the inspection and testing the whole vessel and
removal and decontaminating the area/equipment and renewing the
affected component."

Some proactive companies such as Petrofac are having new ships'
large equipment surveyed for asbestos before leaving the factory.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victims Missing Out on GBP380MM Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Whyatt, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that
campaigners want a GBP380 million compensation fund for victims of
an asbestos-related cancer to be widened.

Only GBP15 million has been claimed since the U.K. Government
launched the scheme in April, prompting ministers to urge more
mesothelioma victims to come forward.

But Joanne Gordon, of the Derbyshire Asbestos Support Team, said
the scheme's eligibility criteria meant many victims cannot claim.

Only those diagnosed from July 25, 2012, are eligible for
compensation -- and Mrs Gordon said the cut-off point should be
changed so that more victims can claim a sum in the region of
GBP125,000.

She said: "We're not surprised that the scheme has not been as
well used as expected because many people we've spoken to have
fallen beside the cut-off point.

"They're more than frustrated -- they're really upset. They've
been through the diagnosis or the pain that comes with the
bereavement process. Then, on top of that, they find that they
can't claim compensation when others can.

"We're certainly pushing for the cut-off date to be changed to
February 2010, when the consultation began."

The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme was introduced in April by
the Mesothelioma Act 2014.

Its purpose is to allow victims of the deadly dust who could not
trace the company where they were exposed to it to apply for
compensation.

It is estimated that 300 people every year in the UK struggle to
find a relevant party to sue for damages, because companies become
insolvent or insurance records cannot be found.

At the scheme's launch in April, ministers said the amount they
will receive will increase from an average of GBP115,000 to
GBP123,000.

This was an increase from 75% to 80% of "average compensation" --
this term means the going rate they might have expected from those
companies if they had been taken to court.

Lord Freud, a minister in the Department for Work and Pensions,
urged victims who are eligible for compensation to come forward.

He said: "This scheme is already up and running but we know that
there are many more victims and their families who could receive
compensation averaging GBP125,000 and I encourage them to come
forward.

"Compensation packages include a sum that can be put towards the
payment of legal fees and are made directly to individuals.

"And the scheme has been designed to accept direct applications,
to enable people to apply without the aid of a solicitor."

Details on how to apply are available at www.mesoscheme.org.uk and
on 0131 331 9090.

WHAT IS MESOTHELIOMA

Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of internal organs, such as
the lungs, and almost always arises from exposure to asbestos.

Life expectancy from diagnosis is, on average, eight to nine
months.

The disease takes a long time to develop -- it is sometimes 40 to
50 years after exposure before symptoms appear -- which means that
some workers were exposed to asbestos at work but their employers
are no longer in existence to make a claim.

The compensation scheme pays for those who develop mesothelioma as
a result of negligent exposure to asbestos at work and are unable
to claim because they cannot trace a liable employer or insurer.
The scheme applies to people diagnosed from July 25, 2012.


                              *********

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  * * *