CAR_Public/150410.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 72


                             Headlines

ACCESS THERAPIES: Motion for Sanctions in Panwar Case Junked
ACCENTCARE INC: Mag. Judge Orders Further Briefing in Echevarria
ADLER MURPHY: Faces "Heeringa" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
AMERICAN TITLE: Court Dismisses "Bushman" Suit

ASSET PLUS: Faces "Janneh" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
ATRIA SENIOR: "Edmead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BANK OF NEW YORK: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Appeal in "Eminence" Case
BIO HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, "Faualey" Suit Says
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Jekowsky" Class Deal Gets Prelim. Court OK

BTC EVENTS: "Camacho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CARDO WINDOWS: "Adami" Plaintiffs Must Submit Estimate of Damages
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Shingles, Suit Claims
CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses "Saiger" Class Action

COOPER VISION: Faces "Cristiano" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Faces "Ewald" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Court Okays Accord Deferring Reply to Magnum Case
DELUXE CORPORATION: Sued in Mo. Over Excessive Delivery Charge
DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
DOLLAR TREE: Court Permits Amendment of "Stafford" Complaint
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Mismanagement of Investment Trade
EASTERN ACCOUNT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Gomes" Case
EZCORP INC: Faces "Ward" Suit in Fla. Over Improper Loan Fees
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: 11th Cir. Revives "Walker" Suit
FMS INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.

FOGLE ENTERPRISES: "Anthony" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied
GENESIS INTERMODAL: Removes "Cabrera" Suit to C.D. California
GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GLOW NETWORKS: Faces "Woodson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HANOVER INSURANCE: April 13 Telephonic Conference Set in "Durand"
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Carter" Suit
HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay Class for all Hours Worked, Suit Says
HMSHOST CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Gorun" Suit Claims

IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Sued Over Design Defects of Leverage Bars
JP MORGAN: Court Issues Scope of Discovery in Lloyd Class Action
JZANUS LTD: Suit Seeks Relief Under Fair Debt Collection Act
K2 XPRESS: "Shabbir" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LINCOLN LIFE: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Shadow Insurance

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Berg" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guest" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Said" Suit in N.Y. Over Toxic Flooring

MARINA DISTRICT: Removes "Motwani" Suit to District of New Jersey
MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiff's Bid for Sanctions Granted in Part
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Orozco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Claims vs. Wilcoxson-Bey
NARCONON REDWOOD: Falsely Marketed Programs, Suit Claims

NATIONAL UNION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Health Policies
NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
PEGASO CORP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Employee
PHARMACIA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Lexington Case Tossed
PHARMACIA CORP: Court Wants Further Briefing on New Monsanto

PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Supreme Court Revives Jury Verdict in "Hess"
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Defective Dashboards
PRIVATE EYES: Court Dismisses Mykytyak-Penning's FLSA Case
REALPAGE INC: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports

REDISCOVER: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAME DAY: Faces "Amaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Corban" Class Suit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Alleged Mistreatment of Orcas
SHERMETA ADAMS: Obtains Initial Approval of "Roberts" Suit Deal

SONY COMPUTER: Deadline to Respond to Ladore Case on April 23
SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
STEPHEN PHILPITT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
STEVEN COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
STRATASYS LTD: Sued in Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports

THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
THOMSON SA: Court Orders Filing of Revised Notice of Settlement
VETSPECS INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
WESTCONSIN CREDIT: McDonough, Eggen and Arnzen Consolidated
WHIRLY WEST: Faces "Belfiore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

YOUKU TUDOU: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Denies Insurer Summary Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dutch Parent Co. Dismissed from Ky. Enviro. Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Group Can File Amicus Brief in NY PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Inks Settlement in "Mann" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.6-Mil. Verdict in "Kaenzig" Suit Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of Aviva's Suit vs. Flintkote Transferred
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Workers' Suit vs. Philips Partially Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grainger's Bid to Junk "Brigantino" Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Issues Records Protocol in 6 PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Grants BNSF's Writ of Mandate Petition

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Units Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has 21,681 Unresolved Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $346-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 73,800 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Disposed 109,500 PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Group Has $10.2MM Fibro Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 13 Pending Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Terms Loom in Michigan Fibro Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children of Mesothelioma Victim File Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Appeals Court Revives Courthouse Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lismore Man Fined for Dumping Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Court Refuses to Dismiss Fibro Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Adelaide Beach

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Trust Transparency Bill Signed Into Law
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Hanly Snags Ex-Weitz & Luxenberg Attys
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Court Flips $14.5MM Fibro Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Oxhey Man to Pay GBP2,500 for Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Limit on Wrongful Death Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Wins Fibro Case Due to Missed Deadline
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit vs. Carnival Corp. Considered a First
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trader Given Suspended Jail Sentence Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wins $4MM Verdict for Plant Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Athlone Fibro Victim Gets Money for Lung Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durham Council Agrees Pay-Out for Fibro Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Denied Quick Win in Reinsurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Worker Dies from Fibro-Related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lansing Fined $21,500 for Safety Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: States Bypass Congress on Bankruptcy Overhaul

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Case Exposes Fibro Blame Game
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firms Call for Stay on Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Steelworkers Filing Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Atty Helps Craft Genetic Mutation Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Say Favoritism Plagues NYC Fibro Courts

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Ct. Adopts Summary Judgment Recommendation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Gave Wrong Info on Fibro in Homes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Hospitals Close Lab After Fibro Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Gets GBP210,00 After Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Claims Fibro Bill Good for W. Va.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Trust Now Accepting Fibro PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Took Life of Mum and Art Teacher
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Addresses Timeliness in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro at Service Center


                            *********


ACCESS THERAPIES: Motion for Sanctions in Panwar Case Junked
------------------------------------------------------------
RITURAJ SINGH PANWAR, MICHAEL RICHARD BAUTISTA AGUSTIN,
Plaintiffs, v. ACCESS THERAPIES, INC., RN STAFF INC doing business
as REHABILITY CARE, RAMON VILLEGAS, HARVINDER DHANI, MANUEL
GARCIA, RAMON VILLEGAS, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00619-TWP-
TAB, (S.D. Ind.) is before the Court on a motion for sanctions
filed by plaintiffs, Messrs. Panwar and Agustin.  Plaintiffs seek
additional sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37
against Defendants, Access Therapies, Inc., RN Staff
(d/b/a/Rehability Care), Ramon Villegas, Harvinder Dhani, Manuel
Garcia, and Ramon Villegas, for failure to produce e-mails from
current and former employees and for allegations of witness
tampering.

In a ruling entered March 25, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/HqIE3Wfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Tanya
Walton Pratt denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions saying
that even if the Court considers the allegations that Defendants
engaged in witness tampering separate from their failure to
produce responsive documents in discovery, the Court still finds
that sanctions are not warranted. First, she said, Plaintiffs have
not sufficiently proven that Defendants actually engaged in
witness tampering.  Second, and more importantly, the failure to
receive the requested documents did not prejudice Plaintiffs, as
the relevance of these documents has ultimately been rendered moot
by the Court's prior rulings.

RITURAJ SINGH PANWAR, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Wirick -
- awirick@humesmith.com -- HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS,
Daniel Aaron Kotchen -- dkotchen@kotchen.com -- KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
& Michael F. Brown, DVG LAW PARTNER LLC.

MICHAEL RICHARD BAUTISTA AGUSTIN, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
P. Wirick, HUME SMITH GEDDES GREEN & SIMMONS, Daniel Aaron
Kotchen, KOTCHEN & LOW LLP & Michael F. Brown, DVG LAW PARTNER
LLC.

ACCESS THERAPIES, INC, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento --
cento@centolaw.com -- CENTO LAW LLC.

RN STAFF INC, doing business as REHABILITY CARE, Defendant,
represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW LLC.

RAMON VILLEGAS, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW
LLC.

HARVINDER DHANI, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO
LAW LLC.

MANUEL GARCIA, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW
LLC.

RAMON VILLEGAS, Defendant, represented by G. John Cento, CENTO LAW
LLC.


ACCENTCARE INC: Mag. Judge Orders Further Briefing in Echevarria
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed the case captioned DEANNE ECHEVARRIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ACCENTCARE, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-
CV-00676-EDL, (N.D. Cal.) in superior court on January 7, 2015.
Defendants removed the case on February 12, 2015, and on February
19, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. On
March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and the Court's docket clerk
closed the case based on the Rule 41(a) notice. Plaintiffs also
filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association.

On March 18, 2015, Defendants filed an administrative motion to
clarify the status of the case. Defendants believe that this case
should remain open and active because it could not have been
closed without compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e).  A threshold question is whether Rule 23(e) applies to this
pre-certification case.

According to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte's March 26,
2015 Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/atyoo7
from Leagle.com, "These cases arose in the context of settlements
and stipulated dismissals, which may well pose a greater danger of
harm to absent members of the putative class than under the
circumstances here, where Plaintiffs dismissed the case with no
agreement from Defendants, and continued to pursue the claims on
behalf of the class through a demand for class arbitration.
Therefore, it is even more unlikely that the Court's approval is
required to protect absent putative class members here.
Nonetheless, in light of the uncertainty, it is prudent for the
Court to consider whether Plaintiffs' involuntary dismissal was
appropriate under Rule 23(e)."

Magistrate Judge Laporte added that the Court lacks sufficient
information. Therefore, Defendants must file a brief, not to
exceed five pages, and Plaintiff may file a response, not to
exceed five pages, no later than today, April 10, 2015. The Court
will take this matter under submission and will inform the parties
whether a hearing is necessary.

Deanne Echevarria, Plaintiff, represented by Ori Edelstein --
ori@ottingerlaw.com -- The Ottinger Firm, P.C. & Robert Walter
Ottinger -- robert@ottingerlaw.com -- The Ottinger Firm, P.C.

Robin Gail Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and other aggrieved employees under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, represented
by Ori Edelstein, The Ottinger Firm, P.C. & Robert Walter
Ottinger, The Ottinger Firm, P.C.

AccentCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Max Fischer --
mfischer@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Robert Joseph Kane --
rkane@stuartkane.com -- Stuart Kane LLP, Angela C. Zambrano --
angela.zambrano@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Corenne
Parks -- eparks@sidley.com -- Sidley Aiston LLP & Joseph
Christopher Cooper -- joseph.cooper@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin
LLP.

AccentCare of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Max
Fischer, Sidley Austin LLP, Robert Joseph Kane, Stuart Kane LLP,
Angela C. Zambrano, Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Corenne Parks, Sidley
Aiston LLP & Joseph Christopher Cooper, Sidley Austin LLP.


ADLER MURPHY: Faces "Heeringa" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Paul Heeringa v. Adler Murphy & McQuillen LLP, Case No.
1:15-cv-02476 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2015) is an action for damages
to redress the alleged deprivation of rights secured to the
Plaintiff by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Chicago, Illinois-based Adler Murphy & McQuillen LLP is a limited
liability partnership engaged in the business of providing legal
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. Gonzalez, Esq.
          Jaz Park, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW
          565 West Adams Street, Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60661
          Telephone: (312) 906-5079
          Facsimile: (312) 906-5299
          E-mail: rgonzale@kentlaw.iit.edu
                  jaz.park@kentlaw.edu


AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Kronstadt entered a final judgment
approving the class settlement negotiated in the lawsuit BRADFORD
GRIMM, MARGARET MOONEY, AND DINESH PATEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
EAGLE AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
NO. LA CV11-00406 JAK (MANX), (C.D. Calif.).

The California District Court certifies the Class, defined as all
current and former employees of American Eagle Airlines, Inc,
employed in the State of California who worked in one or more
Covered Positions (all Airport Agents, including "Reservation
Agents," "Ticket Agents," "Gate Agents," "Customer Service
Agents," "Baggage Service Agents," "Passenger Service Agents,"
"Operations Planning Agents," "Cargo Agents," and similar
positions) from September 21, 2006 through September 29, 2014.

On the Effective Date, Plaintiffs Bradford Grimm and Margaret
Mooney shall be deemed to hold an Allowed Eagle General Unsecured
Claim (as defined in Defendant's Fourth Amended Joint Chapter 11
Plan filed in Defendant's and related debtors' voluntary cases
under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York Case No. 11-15463 (SHL)) on
behalf of themselves and the Class in the total amount of the
Settlement Amount in Defendant's chapter 11 cases to resolve the
Settled Lawsuit on a class-wide basis.  The distribution mechanics
shall be governed by the Plan. Because distributions on an Allowed
Eagle General Unsecured Claim (as defined in the Plan) are made in
common stock of American Airlines Group, Inc. (AAL), the ultimate
dollar value of the Settlement will depend on the trading price of
AAL, although the Service Payments, Class Counsel's costs, and
Settlement Administration Costs shall at no time exceed the dollar
amount approved by the Court in this Judgment.

The Court finds that Harris & Ruble and the Law Offices of John P.
Dorigan are qualified to represent the Class and confirms their
appointment as Class Counsel.  The Court grants Class Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of
the Settlement Amount, approximately some $100,000 depending on
the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation, and attorneys'
costs in the amount of 2.99% of the Settlement Amount,
approximately some $11,978 depending on the value of AAL stock at
the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed
$11,978).

Class Representatives Mooney, Patel, and Grimm are to be paid in
the amounts of 1.25%., 0.3125%, and 0.125%, respectively, of the
Settlement Amount, which is approximately some $5,000, $1,250, and
$500, respectively, depending on the value of AAL stock at the
time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed
$5,000, $1,250, and $500, respectively), as Service Payments in
recognition of their efforts in coming forward as Class
Representatives and participating in the Settled Lawsuit.

Settlement Administration Costs in the amount of 4.5% of the
Settlement Amount, approximately some $18,000 depending on the
value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not
at any time exceed $18,000), will be paid to Rust Consulting, Inc.

A copy of the California District Court's Final Judgment dated
March 23, 2015 is located at http://is.gd/lLQklGfrom Leagle.com.

Bradford Grimm, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan --
pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris --
HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble & John Patrick
Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices.

Margaret Mooney, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and
Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan,
John P Dorigan Law Offices.

Dinesh Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and
Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan,
John P Dorigan Law Offices.

American Eagle Airlines Inc, Defendant, represented by Donna Mo -
dmo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Robert J
Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.


AMERICAN TITLE: Court Dismisses "Bushman" Suit
----------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh granted defendants' joint motion
to dismiss in the case captioned BRAD J. BUSHMAN, and TAMARA R.
STAFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY OF
WASHTENAW, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-10011 (E.D. Mich.).


A proposed class action was brought by residential home sellers
alleging defendants defrauded them and violated the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) when they listed real estate
transfer taxes on HUD-1 settlement statement that allegedly were
not due.  Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In an order dated April 2, 2015, which is available at
http://is.gd/rQLpunfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steeh dismissed
plaintiffs' fraud claim as facially deficient, and plaintiffs'
MCPA claim under that statute's exemption for certain claims
against insurance companies.

Brad J. Bushman, Tamara R. Stafford, Ryan Walsh, Sarah Walsh,
Michael P. Jennings, Toby Jacoboni, and Jennifer F. Jennings,
Plaintiffs, represented by Randal L. Schmidt --
randal@schmidtlawyers.com , Sempliner and Thomas & Scott M. Hare,
Scott Michael Hare, Attorney at Law.

Matthew Reynolds, Lisa Williams-Warren, Janet Graf, Heather Kupets
Harris, Daniel Blugerman, Margaret Chamberlain, Jason Frank, and
Dwight Pearson, Plaintiffs, represented by Randal L. Schmidt,
Sempliner and Thomas.

Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Commonwealth Land Title
Insurance Company, and First American Title Insurance Company,
Defendants, represented by Derek Diaz -- ddiaz@hahnlaw.com , Hahn
Loeser & Parks,LLP, Joseph E. Richotte -- richotte@butzel.com ,
BUTZEL LONG, P.C. & George B. Donnini -- donnini@butzel.com ,
Butzel Long.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Defendant, represented by Gerard
D. Kelly -- gkelly@sidley.com , Sidley Austin LLP, Kevin M. Fee --
kfee@sidley.com , Sidley Austin LLP, LeRoy L. Asher, Jr. --
asher@millercanfield.com , Miller, Canfield & Michael P. Coakley
-- coakley@millercanfield.com , Miller, Canfield.

Title Source, Inc., WFG National Title Insurance Company,
Attorneys Title Agency, LLC, and Greco Title Agency, Defendant,
represented by Michelle R.E. Donovan --
mdonovan@plunkettcooney.com , Plunkett & Cooney.

American Title Company of Washtenaw, Defendant, represented by
Michelle K. J. Taylor , American Title Company of Washtenaw.

Capital Title Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by Evan A.
Burkholder -- evan.burkholder@leclairryan.com , LeClairRyan.

Michigan Title Insurance Agency, Defendant, represented by Joseph
P. Buttiglieri -- j.buttiglieri@kkue.com , Kemp, Klein & Kevin J.
McGiness -- kevin.mcginess@kkue.com , Macuga Liddle & Dubin, P.C..


ASSET PLUS: Faces "Janneh" Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Salamatu Janneh, Lytia Johnson and Ashley Lauder, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Asset Plus
Companies, LP, Asset Plus Corporation, Asset Campus Housing, Inc.,
Accord Human Resources, Inc., and Trinet Group, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00120-AWA-TEM (E.D. Va., March 23, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Michael David, Esq.
          Nicholas Anthony Nunes, Esq.
          DAVID KAMP & FRANK LLC
          739 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 105
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 595-4500
          Facsimile: (757) 595-6723
          E-mail: jdavid@davidkampfrank.com
                  nanunes@davidkampfrank.com


ATRIA SENIOR: "Edmead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Shevon Edmead, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Atria Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01552 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest
under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Atria Senior Living, Inc. owns and operates more than 100 living
assisted facilities throughout the United Sates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF NEW YORK: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Appeal in "Eminence" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, dismissed the appeal filed by the
defendant-appellant in the case captioned EMINENCE INVESTORS,
L.L.L.P., an Arkansas Limited Liability Limited Partnership,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, a New York Banking
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-15237 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiff-Appellant Eminence Investors, L.L.L.P. (Eminence)
originally brought suit in California state court against The Bank
of New York Mellon (Bank).  The Bank removed the action to federal
court, but Eminence moved to remand the case to state court.  The
district court agreed with Eminence regarding the untimeliness of
the removal and remanded the case to state court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the securities
exception under the Class Action Fairness Act applies to this
case.  In an opinion dated April 2, 2015 which is available at
http://is.gd/i6vCGlfrom Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit dismissed
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

David J. Bird (argued) -- dbird@reedsmith.com , James C. Martin --
jcmartin@reedsmith.com , Eric A. Schaffer --
eschaffer@reedsmith.com , and Benjamin J. Sitter --
bsitter@reedsmith.com , Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Donald H. Glasrud -- dhg@dgmalaw.com , Dietrich, Glasrud, Mallek &
Aune, Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Robert Branch (argued) -- rbranch@rbtlawfirm.com , Thornton Law
Group, P.C., Fresno, California; Douglas V. Thornton --
dthornton@rbtlaw.com , Rummonds Thornton, LLP, Fresno, California,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.


BIO HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, "Faualey" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Bio Health Solutions, LLC and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02544 (N.D. Ill., March 25,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending
unsolicited facsimiles.

Bio Health Solutions, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Reno, Nevada and a
distributor of a range of next-gen infection control & healthcare
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: 847-368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Jekowsky" Class Deal Gets Prelim. Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class settlement in the lawsuit BARRY
JEKOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE
MOTOREN WERKE AG Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02158-VC, (N.D.
Calif.).

For purposes of the Settlement, the Court conditionally certifies
a Settlement Class defined as: All residents of the United States
(including Puerto Rico), who currently own or lease, or previously
owned or leased, a Class Vehicle.  "Class Vehicle" is defined as:
2009 through 2012 model year BMW Z4 vehicles that were sold or
leased in the United States or Puerto Rico to residents of the
United States and Puerto Rico that were equipped with Class Wheels
either as original equipment, or that a Class Member equipped with
Class Wheels post-purchase.

Barry Jekowsky is appointed as class representative and Kemnitzer,
Barron & Krieg and Chavez & Gertler are appointed as class
counsel.

Gilardi & Co. is approved as the Claims Administrator to perform
the duties set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement.

A final approval hearing will be held on October 29, 2015 at 10:00
a.m. before the Honorable Vince Chhabria in California.

A copy of the District Court's March 20, 2015 Order is available
at http://is.gd/VrOsTGfrom Leagle.com.

CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP, MARK A. CHAVEZ -- mark@chavezgertler.com --
Mill Valley, CA.

KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP, BRYAN KEMNITZER, NANCY BARRON,
ELLIOT CONN, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Barry
Jekowsky and the proposed class.


BTC EVENTS: "Camacho" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Camacho, Pedro Contreras, Joseph Russo, Jr., Danny Victoria
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BTC
Events, Inc., Leisure Time Tours of New York Corp., Mary Marsico,
Daniel J. Frucher, Robert Fruchar, and John and Jane Does 1-100,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02253 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees, and all other appropriate relief pursuant to Fair Labor
Standard Act.

BTC Events, Inc. is a New York corporation that provides event
management services.

Leisure Time Tours of New York Corp. is a New York Corporation
that organizes luxury vacations during the Jewish holiday of
Passover, as well as other Jewish holidays, for religious Jewish
vacationers who follow Jewish religious practices, including
kosher dietary laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Parkhurst, Esq.
      GILES LAW FIRM LLC
      825 Third Avenue, 4th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (201) 577-2644
      E-mail: jparkhurst@gileslawfirmllc.com


CARDO WINDOWS: "Adami" Plaintiffs Must Submit Estimate of Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle issued a conditional
denial on Defendant's motion for summary judgment to the extent it
is based on Plaintiffs' failure to provide a reasonable estimate
of damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), in the case captioned
FRED ADAMI and JACK VARNER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARDO WINDOWS, INC. d/b/a
"Castle, 'The Window People'" et al., Defendants, Civil Case No.
12-2804 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs brought this suit over Defendants' alleged
misclassification of its window installers as independent
contractors.  Plaintiffs maintained claims for unpaid overtime and
all other relief they are due under the FLSA, NJWHL, and the New
Jersey Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act ("CIICA"),
as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that
Plaintiffs' FLSA and NJWHL claims must fail for failure to present
insufficient evidence to calculate damages.

In his Opinion dated March 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/BPzBMLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle denied
Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the extent it is based
on Plaintiffs' failure to provide a reasonable estimate of damages
under the FLSA and NJWHL, upon condition that each Plaintiff shall
certify and serve his required Compilation of Estimated Overtime
Hours and Damages within 30 days, or else, summary judgment will
be granted.

Richard S. Hannye, Esq., HANNYE LLC Haddonfield, NJ, Attorney for
Plaintiffs.

Kenneth S. Goodkind, Esq. -- ken.goodkind@flastergreenberg.com ,
Michael D. Homans, Esq. -- michael.homans@flastergreenberg.com ,
Rachel E. Licausi, Esq. -- rachel.licausi@flastergreenberg.com ,
Peter J. Tomasco, Esq., FLASTER GREENBERG P.C., Cherry Hill, NJ,
Attorneys for Defendants.


CERTAINTEED CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Shingles, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Amato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Certainteed Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00408 (W.D.
Pa., March 25, 2015), arises out of false and misleading packaging
of the Shingles that are labeled Algae Resistant, when in fact,
they were not Algae Resistant to yellow-green algae. They also
prematurely changes color and stains under normal exterior
conditions and natural, outdoor exposure.

Certainteed Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. It design and manufacture exterior
building products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
      ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-7229
      Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
      E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com


CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Dickinson R. DeBevoise reviewed and approved
three Reports and Recommendations filed by Special Master George
L. Priest in the action CECIL McLENDON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. ALBERT J. JAKUB, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants. ROBERT GAVALIK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL
GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, (N.J.).

The action was settled through a Settlement Agreement dated
December 19, 1990, pursuant to which settlement amounts were
distributed in accordance with a Plan of Distribution. Special
Master George L. Priest supervised the extraordinarily complex
distribution process, complicated by the length of time required
to effect distributions, the necessity to apply for FICA tax
refunds, dispersal and deaths of class members.

The Reports and Recommendations filed by the Special Master are:

  (1) the Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the
      Special Master with Respect to the Waiver of Certain
      Settlement Payments,

  (2) the Second Supplemental Report of the Special Master with
      Respect to Certain Class Members Overpaid during the
      Distribution of the Settlement, and

  (3) the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master with
      Regard to the Termination of the Settlement.

In sum, a total of $418,047,492 was disbursed to class members and
Special Settlement participants or successors; another $7,110,888
in tax refunds.

A copy of the District Court's Order and Opinion dated March 26,
2015 is available at http://is.gd/gR0gCLfrom Leagle.com.

Rose A. Wehner, Esq., Law Office of Rose A. Wehner PC, Chicago,
IL, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al.

John G. Jacobs, Esq. Jacobs Kolton, Chartered, Chicago, IL,
Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al.

Roslyn Litman, Esq., The Litman Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney
for Plaintiffs, Albert J. Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al.
Martha Helmreich, Esq., Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick &
Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Albert J.
Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al.

Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., Esq., Don Scott, Esq. Bartlit Beck Herman
Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Defendants.

Timothy J. Thalken, Esq., Fraser Stryker PC LLO, Omaha, NE,
Attorney for Defendants.

George L. Priest, New Haven, CT, Special Master.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Dismisses "Saiger" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jorge L. Alonso issued a memorandum opinion and
order on March 26, 2015, granting two motions to dismiss the
amended complaint in the case captioned JOHN SAIGER, Plaintiff, v.
THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County, RONALD TOWNSEND, JORELLE
ALEXANDER, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants, NO. 13 C 5495,
(N.D. Ill.) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

John Saiger sued Thomas Dart, the Sheriff of Cook County; Cook
County; Ronald Townsend, the chief dentist at the Cook County
Jail; and Jorelle Alexander, the assistant director of oral health
for Cook County Health and Hospital Systems, under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for their alleged violations of his Fourteenth
Amendment rights.  Defendants Dart, Townsend, and Alexander moved
to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice, wrote Judge
Saiger in his order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/csol1Bfrom Leagle.com.  Plaintiff is given leave to
file by April 17, 2015 a second amended complaint that cures the
deficiencies identified by the Court. This case is set for a
status hearing on April 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

John Saiger, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick William Morrissey,
Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd.

Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Defendant, represented by
Michael D. Warner, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr.
& Michael L. Gallagher, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley
Ctr.

Ronald Townsend, Defendant, represented by Maureen O'Donoghue
Hannon, Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

Jorelle Alexander, Defendant, represented by Maureen O'Donoghue
Hannon, Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

Cook County, Illinois, Defendant, represented by Maureen
O'Donoghue Hannon, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Michael
L. Gallagher, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr. &
Michael D. Warner, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Cristiano" Suit Over Lens-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Cristiano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch
+ Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB Optical
Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-02135 (D.N.J., March 25, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum
resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to
so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price
competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and
internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those
products.

The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Two Gateway Center, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: 267-519-8306
      Facsimile: 215-569-0958
      E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Joseph LoPiccolo, Esq.
      John N. Poulos, Esq.
      POULOS LOPICCOLO PC
      1305 Roller Road
      Ocean Township, NJ 07712
      Telephone: 732-757-0165
      Facsimile: 732-358-0180
      E-mail: lopiccolo@pllawfirm.com
              poulos@pllawfirm.com


COOPER VISION: Faces "Ewald" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Ewald, Jeffrey Robb, Erin Depperschmidt and Luis Padilla on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cooper
Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb
Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Con-
Cise Optical Group LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-21181 (S.D. Fla., March
25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy
to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by
subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs)
and eliminate price competition on those products by big box
stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent
them from discounting those products.

The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the
business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Gravante III, Esq.
     Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq.
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 358-2800
     Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
     E-mail: jgravante@podhurst.com
             rjosefsberg@podhurst.com

        - and -

     Guri Ademi, Esq.
     Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
     John D. Blythin, Esq.
     ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
     3620 East Layton Avenue
     Cudahy, WI 53110
     Telephone: (414) 482-8000
     Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
     E-mail: gadern¡@ademilaw.com
             sademi@adernilaw.com
             jblythin@ademilaw.com


COOPER VISION: Court Okays Accord Deferring Reply to Magnum Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., signed on March 26, 2015,
joint stipulation and order deferring defendants' time to answer
or otherwise respond to the complaint in STEPHEN MANGUM, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COOPERVISION, INC.; ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.; BAUSCH + LOMB;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC.; and ABB/CON-CISE OPTICAL
GROUP LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-01064-HSG, (N.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/4CFHYAfrom Leagle.com, the Parties
agreed that:

1. The counsel accept service of the Complaint for their
respective clients named in the Complaint without waiver of any
defenses;

2. Defendants are not required to answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiffs' complaint in the action until 60 days after a
consolidated amended complaint is filed in In re: Disposable
Contact Lens Litigation (MDL No. 2626) in a transferee court (the
Response Date).

3. If Defendants are required to answer or otherwise respond to
any other class action complaint in a related action on a date
prior to the Response Date, Defendants will answer or otherwise
respond to the Complaint in this action on the same date as in the
related class action.

4. If Defendants respond to any formal or informal discovery
requests or make any initial disclosures in a related class
action, Defendants will provide the same response and/or initial
disclosures to Plaintiffs in this action on the same date as in
the related class action (without prejudice to the position of any
party about when discovery should begin).

Daniel J. Mogin -- dmogin@moginlaw.com -- Jodie M. Williams --
jwilliams@moginlaw.com -- THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C., San Diego, CA,
Counsel for Plaintiffs.

William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON
BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND &
ELLIS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for ABB/Con-Cise
Optical Group LLC.

Evan R. Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- David R. Marriott --
dmarriott@cravath.com -- CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE LLP, Worldwide
Plaza, New York, NY, Thomas B. Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com --
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Alcon
Laboratories, Inc.

James P. Schaefer -- james.schaefer@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Palo Alto, California, Attorneys for
Bausch + Lomb Incorporated.

Daniel M. Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San
Francisco, CA, Attorneys for CooperVision, Inc.


DELUXE CORPORATION: Sued in Mo. Over Excessive Delivery Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kay Catlin v. Deluxe Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00522 (E.D.
Mo., March 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of
charging excessive, deceptive, unfair and unethical fees for
delivery of new and replacement checks.

Deluxe Corporation sells checks to account holders at various
banks in Illinois and with its principal place of business at 3680
Victoria St. N., Shoreview, MN 55126.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
      1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-5799
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
      E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

         - and -

      Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
      Anthony S. Bruning Jr., Esq.
      LERITZ, PLUNKERT & BRUNING, P.C.
      555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (314) 231-9480
      E-mail: ajbruning@leritzlaw.com


DINOSAUR RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Hankins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dinosaur Restaurants, LLC, JLN- Store, Inc. f/k/a
Dino-Store Inc., Soros Strategic Partners LP, and John Stage, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02272 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Dinosaur BBQ Restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Melito, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com
              nmelito@fslawfirm.com


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Efraim Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. d/b/a
Diversified Consultants International, Case No. 1:15-cv-01521
(E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


DOLLAR TREE: Court Permits Amendment of "Stafford" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted in part plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a third amendment complaint in the case
captioned RICHARD STAFFORD, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, No. 2:13-CV-01187-
KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

A complaint was filed by Jay Narvaez and Lisa Hornsby alleging a
number of wage and hour class claims and a Private Attorney
General Act claim against Dollar Tree.  A first amended complaint
was filed on January 7, 2013 adding Richard Stafford as a
plaintiff.  On February 12, 2013, Stafford filed a second
amendment complaint removing the class claims and alleging several
claims stemming from his work as an assistant manager at a Dollar
Tree Store.  On December 31, 2014, Stafford filed a motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint to which Defendant filed
an opposition.

In an order dated March 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/fgmFYE
from Leagle.com, Judge Mueller granted plaintiff leave to amend to
allow plaintiff to plead additional facts to support the claims as
pled in the second amended complaint.  However, to the extent
plaintiff seeks to add a claim for violation of Labor Code Sec.
2802, the court found that claim is barred for failure to exhaust,
and barred plaintiff's motion as to that claim.

Richard Stafford, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Erasto
Jaramillo, GrahamHollis APC, Brian R. Short --
bshort@grahamhollis.com , Graham Hollis, A.p.c. & Graham S.P.
Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com , GrahamHollis, APC.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindbergh
Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com , Littler Mendelson, Alison
Jacquelyn Cubre -- acubre@littler.com , Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com , Littler
Mendelson, Constance E. Norton -- cnorton@littler.com , Littler
Mendelson, P.c. & Tarun Mehta -- tmehta@littler.com , Littler
Mendelson P.C.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Mismanagement of Investment Trade
--------------------------------------------------------------
TY Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. E*Trade Financial Corporation and E*Trade Securities LLC, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01384 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for breach of their duty of best execution when
routing a specific type of investment trade for execution on
behalf of its customers, specifically by failing to put the
interests of its customers ahead of its own and to use reasonable
diligence so that the resultant price to the customer is as
favorable as possible.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company that
provides brokerage and related products and services primarily to
individual retail investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq
      Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
      Ashley P. Palmer, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
              apalmer@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

      John K. Landay, Esq.
      Malcolm B. Roberts, Esq.
      LANDAY ROBERTS LLP
      450 J. Street, Unit 5291
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (805) 305-3384
      E-mail: jlanday@landayroberts.com
              mroberts@landayroberts.com


EASTERN ACCOUNT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Specht, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc.,
a Connecticut Corporation; Joseph P. Courtney, Jr., individually
and in his official capacity; and John and Jane Does Numbers 1
Through 20, Case No. 7:15-cv-02159-KMK (S.D.N.Y.,
March 23, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RexCorp Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phanibhushan Tadepalli, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Encore Receivable Management,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01517 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) seeks
relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blimie Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-01518 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


EXTRA SPACE STORAGE: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Gomes" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katharine S. Hayden granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss several of the Plaintiff's
claims in his amended complaint in the case captioned STEVEN R.
GOMES, JR. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC. And EXTRA SPACE STORAGE
MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN DOE COMPANIES 1-50, Defendants, Civil
No. 13-0929 (KSH)(CLW)(D.N.J.).

Steven R. Gomes, Jr. filed a class action complaint alleging that
the terms of the rental agreement that he entered into with
defendants, and a Notice of Lien and Foreclosure, which he
received from them, violated various statutes.  Gomes further
alleged that defendants neglected to follow the prescribed
procedure before selling his property for his non-payment of rent.

In an Opinion dated March 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/6sTSgOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hayden granted in part
and dismissed in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.

CASSANDRA DICRISTI, GARY LANIGAN, KENNETH NELSON, DONNA SWEENEY,
CRYSTAL RAUPP, Defendants, represented by GREGORY R. BUENO, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.


EZCORP INC: Faces "Ward" Suit in Fla. Over Improper Loan Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Peter Ward, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EZCorp, Inc., and Value Financial Services,
Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-00474 (M.D. Fla., March 24, 2015), arises
out of the Defendant's unlawful conduct of charging improper fees
upon repayment of loan.

EZCorp, Inc. owns and operates chains of retail pawnshops
throughout the United States.

Value Financial Services, Inc. owns and operates a chain of
pawnshop in the states of Florida and Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
      2254 Riverside Ave
      Jacksonville, FL 32204
      Telephone: (904) 374-0111
      Facsimile: (904) 374-0113
      E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: 11th Cir. Revives "Walker" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In TAMIKO P. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY
SERVICES, INC., BRIAN CHARLES BOWERS, JOHN DOE, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 14-13769, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR, Tamiko P. Walker
appeals the district court's order granting Financial Recovery
Services, Inc.'s (FRS) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Walker argues that the district court
improperly found her case to be moot after she received and
rejected an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68. The district court based its finding on an offer
that would have provided her complete relief on her individual
claims while giving no relief to the putative class.

"Because the district court contravened our recent decision in
Stein v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, 772 F.3d 698 (11th Cir.
2014), we reverse  . . . the order of dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion," ruled the United States Court of
Appeals, Eleventh Circuit on March 27, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/8CCVIffrom Leagle.com.


FMS INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Kacenberg, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. FMS Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01519 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 23, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


FOGLE ENTERPRISES: "Anthony" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mikkayla Anthony, Tammy Deware, Sonia Kellett, Tony Kellett,
Kristen Patterson, Donnie Talley, Tim Wesolek, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated v. Fogle Enterprises, Inc., Case
No. 6:15-cv-03130 (W.D. Mo., March 26, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Fogle Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates several restaurants in
Branson, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
      One Court Street
      Alton, IL 62002
      Telephone: (618) 259-6275
      Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
      E-mail: ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com


FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tomm S. Lee denied class certification of the
action MARY BRIDGES, BOBBY GORDON, AND JOHNNIE GRIFFIN, ALL
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF 345 OTHER NAMED PLAINTIFFS,
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD A. FREESE; TIM K. GOSS; SHEILA M. BOSSIER;
DENNIS C. SWEET, III; FREESE AND GOSS PLLC; SWEET AND FREESE PLLC;
BOSSIER AND ASSOCIATES PLLC; AND DENNIS C. SWEET, D/B/A SWEET AND
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Defendants, v. DON A. MITCHELL, Third-Party
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV457TSL-JCG, (S.D. Miss.)

Plaintiffs Mary Bridges, Bobby Gordon and Johnnie Griffin, along
with 345 others, were previously represented by defendants Freese,
Goss, Sweet and Bossier (and their respective law firms) and by
third-party defendant Don Mitchell in three separate lawsuits
brought against, inter alia, BorgWarner Corporation, in which the
plaintiffs sought to recover damages for injuries they claimed to
have suffered as the result of the alleged release and improper
disposal and elimination of those certain toxic chemicals
(polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) at a Crystal Springs
manufacturing facility. Plaintiffs' counsel ultimately reached a
global settlement of nearly $28,000,000 with BorgWarner on behalf
of the 348 plaintiffs (Filed Claimants), and on behalf of an
additional 2,471 clients (Unfiled Claimants) who were not
plaintiffs in the PCB litigation but who also claimed they were
injured from exposure to PCBs. The terms of the settlement were
finalized in mid-2010 and in early 2011, defendants began the
process of disbursing settlement funds to the PCB claimants, filed
and unfiled.

On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs Bridges, Gordon and Griffin filed the
present lawsuit for themselves and on behalf of a putative class
comprised of the other 345 former clients represented by
defendants, asserting myriad claims relating to defendants'
representation of plaintiffs in the PCB litigation, with
particular reference to their handling of litigation expenses and
disbursement of settlement proceeds. The complaint purports to set
forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious breach of
contract, fraudulent inducement, conversion, tortious interference
with contract, unjust enrichment and bad faith based on
allegations that defendants failed to properly allocate litigation
expenses among the Filed and Unfiled Claimants; charged plaintiffs
expenses that were exorbitant and unreasonable; converted funds
from the PCB settlement for their own personal and unjust benefit;
had an undisclosed conflict of interest related to their ongoing
representation of the State of Mississippi for recovery of
Medicaid and Medicare liens in other mass tort litigation, while
at the same time negotiating the PCB plaintiffs' Medicaid and
Medicare liens; improperly paid expenses and fees to themselves
before disbursing settlement funds to plaintiffs; and unreasonably
delayed payment to plaintiffs so as to use the settlement funds to
further defendants' own monetary interests.

Among other things, the Court concludes that the named plaintiffs
are not adequate class representatives.

A copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
March 26, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/NbZxClfrom
Leagle.com.

Mary Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK
MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC.

Bobby Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK
MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC.

Johnnie Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK
MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC.

Richard A. Freese, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror,
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX,
LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC &
Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC.

Tim K. Goss, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN,
LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC,
Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP,
Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin
Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Sheila M. Bossier, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror,
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX,
LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP,
Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC &
Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC.

Dennis C. Sweet, III, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Freese and Goss PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Sweet and Freese PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Bossier and Associates PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan
Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL
NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON,
PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER &
COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER &
HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,
GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Dennis C. Sweet, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror,
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX,
LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP,
Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC &
Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES,
PLLC.

Don A. Mitchell, Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt Hazard,
DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL, Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY &
MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP &
Christy Vinson Malatesta, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL.

James W. Shelson, Material Witness, represented by Fred L. Banks,
Jr., PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP.

Freese and Goss PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R.
David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Richard A. Freese, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Sheila M. Bossier, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Sweet and Freese PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R.
David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Dennis C. Sweet, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Tim K. Goss, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David
Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard
Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.

Bossier and Associates PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Dennis C. Sweet, III, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R.
David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert
Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC.
Don A. Mitchell, Third Party Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt
Hazard, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL & Christy Vinson Malatesta,
DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL.


GENESIS INTERMODAL: Removes "Cabrera" Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jorge Cabrera v. Genesis
Intermodal Delivery Inc., et al., Case No. RIC1408897, was removed
from the Riverside Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00551-CAS-MRW
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related dispute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent Charles Granberry, Esq.
          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP
          8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                  jlavi@lelawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 460
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com


GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher R. Bush, Rafael E. Andrade, Dallas A. Germundson,
Garret P. Decker, Anton R. J. Beltran, Caryn R. Gangi, Samuel
D. Untalasco, and Thomas B. Brown, Individually, and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Globaltranz Enterprises, Inc.,
Andrew J. Leto, and Michael Leto, Case No. 2:15-cv-00536 (D.
Ariz., March 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a logistics company specializing in
freight management services that maintain agents for the
transaction of its customary business in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford Phillip Bendau II, Eq.
      BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      6350 E Thomas Rd., Ste. 330
      Scottsdale, AZ 85251
      Telephone: (480) 296-7887
      Facsimile: (480) 429-3679
      E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com


GLOW NETWORKS: Faces "Woodson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Woodson, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated
v. Glow Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00942 (N.D. Tex., March
25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Glow Networks, Inc. is a Texas corporation that is engaged in the
business of installation and maintenance services of D/C and A/C
power and telecommunication services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


HANOVER INSURANCE: April 13 Telephonic Conference Set in "Durand"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl stayed Defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the case captioned JENNIFER A. DURAND, et
al. Plaintiffs, v. THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:07CV-00130-HBB (W.D. Ky.).

A class suit was filed against The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.
challenging the Defendants' methodology for calculating lump sum
distributions between March 1, 1997 and August 17, 2006 which
allegedly resulted in an underpayment of accrued benefits.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.  Plaintiffs strongly opposed the appropriateness
of Defendants filing this motion and, instead of responding, filed
a motion to confirm the case management plan and defer briefing on
Defendants' summary judgment motion.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/W1hKDxfrom Leagle.com, the Court found that much of
the disagreement between the parties arose because there is no
scheduling order outlining discovery and motion practice on the
remaining claims.  The Court thereby ordered that it will conduct
a telephonic conference with the parties on April 13, 2015, at
10:00 AM (CDT) to put a new scheduling order into place.  It
further ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
stayed pending completion of limited discovery on the statute of
limitations issue, the deadline for which will be established
during the telephonic scheduling conference.

Jennifer A. Durand, On behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Huang,
Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, E. Douglas Richards, E. Douglas
Richards, PSC, Eli Gottesdiener, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC,
Matthew C. Norgard, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC & Steven D. Cohen,
Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC.

Walter J. Wharton, and Michael A. Tedesco, Plaintiffs, represented
by Albert Huang, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, Eli Gottesdiener,
Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC, Matthew C. Norgard, Gottesdiener Law
Firm, PLLC & Steven D. Cohen, Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial
Cash Balance Pension Plan, Defendants, represented by Alan S.
Gilbert -- alan.gilbert@dentons.com , Dentons US LLP, Angela Logan
Edwards -- angela.edwards@dinsmore.com , Dinsmore & Shohl LLP,
Stephen J. O'Brien, Dentons US LLP, Jeffery S. Davis, Dentons US
LLP, Lisa D. Hughes, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Richard H.C. Clay --
richard.clay@dinsmore.com , Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Court Dismisses "Carter" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. dismissed the Complaint
with prejudice in the case captioned MARISSA CARTER, EVELYN GRYS,
BRUCE CURRIER, SHARON KONING, SUE BEEHLER, MARSHA MANCUSO, and
JACLYN CUTHBERTSON, as individuals and as representatives of the
classes, Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, THE
ROCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, THE UNITY HOSPITAL OF ROCHESTER, and
F.F. THOMPSON HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-6275-FPG
(W.D.N.Y.).

A putative class action lawsuit was filed alleging that the
Defendants overcharged individuals in New York State who requested
copies of their medical records.  Plaintiffs brought claims for
money damages under New York Public Health Law, under New York
General Business Law, and for unjust enrichment.

In a decision and order dated March 31, 2015 which is available at
http://is.gd/L5vLPXfrom Leagle.com, the Court found that the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish their standing to sue in this
case and granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

Marissa Carter, Evelyn Grys, Bruce Currier, Sharon Koning, Sue
Beehler, and Marsha Mancuso, Plaintiffs, represented by David J.
Carrier -- dcarrier@nka.com , Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Kai H. Richter
-- krichter@nka.com , Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Kathryn Lee Bruns --
kbruns@faraci.com , Faraci Lange LLP & Stephen G. Schwarz --
sschwarz@faraci.com , Faraci Lange LLP.

Jaclyn Cuthbertson, Plaintiff, represented by Kai H. Richter,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Kathryn Lee Bruns, Faraci Lange LLP &
Stephen G. Schwarz, Faraci Lange LLP.

HealthPort Technologies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron M.
Saykin -- asaykin@hodgsonruss.com , Hodgson Russ LLP, Jodyann
Galvin, Hodgson Russ LLP & Rebecca A. Brazzano, Thompson Hine LLP.

The Rochester General Hospital, and The Unity Hospital of
Rochester, Defendants, represented by Aaron M. Saykin, Hodgson
Russ LLP &Jodyann Galvin -- jgalvin@hodgsonruss.com , Hodgson Russ
LLP.

F.F. Thompson Hospital, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric J.
Ward -- eward@wardgreenberg.com , Ward Greenberg Heller & Reidy
LLP.


HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay Class for all Hours Worked, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Walls, Dawn Stiger, David Hill, and Melinda Sexton v.
HMSHost Corporation, Host International, Inc., and Host Services
of New York, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00564 (N.D. Ohio, March 23,
2015) alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as
exempt under federal and state overtime laws and failed to pay
them for all hours worked.

HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.  HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by
Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an
Italian corporation.  Host International, Inc., is a Delaware
corporation also headquartered in Bethesda.

The Defendants are one of the world's largest providers of travel
venue merchandise and food and beverage concessions.  They have
operations in a number of the largest airports in North America
and its 20,000+ employees serve over 1 billion travelers every
year.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.
          LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
          1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 522-9000
          Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
          E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
                  drew@lgmlegal.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com
                  Jklafter@klafterolsen.com
                  frudich@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Bradley I. Berger, Esq.
          BERGER & ASSOCIATES
          321 Broadway
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 571-1900
          E-mail: bradberger29@gmail.com


HMSHOST CORP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgette Martin and Gregory Herndon v. HMSHost Corporation, and
Host International, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00835-MHC (N.D. Ga.,
March 23, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid
wages from the Defendants for all hours worked by them as well as
for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium
pay, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.  HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by
Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an
Italian corporation.  HMSHost Corporation manages and oversees the
operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United
States airports and other travel facilities, and acts with its
subsidiaries, including Host International, Inc., in concert and
together in a common enterprise and through related activities.
Host International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation also
headquartered in Bethesda.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Jerilyn E. Gardner, Esq.
          FRIED & BONDER, LLC
          White Provision, Suite 305
          1170 Howell Mill Rd., NW
          Atlanta, GA 30318
          Telephone: (404) 995-8808
          Facsimile: (404) 995-8899
          E-mail: ahead@friedbonder.com
                  jgardner@friedbonder.com

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com
                  fran@klafterolsen.com
                  michael.reed@klafterolsen.com
                  jak@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Bradley I. Berger, Esq.
          BERGER & ASSOCIATES
          321 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-1900
          E-mail: bradberger29@gmail.com


IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Gorun" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel M. Gorun, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. I.C. System, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02050-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., March 23, 2015) seeks relief over alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave, 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Sued Over Design Defects of Leverage Bars
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Weininger, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Implus Footcare, LLC, Case No. 4:15-
cv-01375 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), arises out of the top
leverage doorway bars manufactured and sold by Defendants that
contain a design defect which under its intended purpose can come
unattached to the door frame causing the user to fall injuring
themselves or even result in a fatality.

Implus Footcare, LLC is a Delaware corporation that manufactures
and distributes sportswear and equipment with its principal place
of business in Durham, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
      Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
      STONEBARGER LAW
      A Professional Corporation
      75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
      Folsom, CA 95630
      Telephone (916) 235-7140
      Facsimile (916) 235-7141
      E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
              rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
      Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
      KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
      3436 N. Verdugo Road, Suite 230
      Glendale, CA 91208
      Telephone (213) 473-1900
      Facsimile (213) 473-1919
      E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
              pwl@kearneylittlefield.com


JP MORGAN: Court Issues Scope of Discovery in Lloyd Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In JEFFREY LLOYD, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,
Defendants. KENNETH CIULLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE
& CO., et al., Defendants, NOS. 11 CIV. 9305 (LTS)(HBP), 12 CIV.
2197 (LTS)(HBP), (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman issued
an order on March 20, 2015, to resolve the parties' dispute
concerning the scope of discovery that defendants may seek from
the opt-in plaintiffs who are not subject to any arbitration
agreement.

Defendants have contended that individualized discovery is
particularly appropriate where, as here, defendants plan to seek
decertification of the collective. Plaintiffs argued that the
discovery defendants' seek is burdensome and excessive and that
discovery should be limited to a representative sample of
plaintiffs, consisting of written discovery from 25% of the opt-
ins who did not sign an arbitration agreement and depositions of
10% of the opt-ins who did not sign an arbitration agreement.
Plaintiffs also requested that (1) "[b]oth parties . . . have a
role in selecting opt-ins who submit to discovery or [that] a
portion . . . be selected at random," (2) defendants be limited to
10 written discovery requests, (3) defendants be precluded from
seeking information that they already have and (4) depositions be
limited to three hours.

According to Magistrate Judge Pitman's ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/00wO7mfrom Leagle.com, "defendants may
seek written discovery from all 100 opt-ins who have not signed
arbitration agreements and may depose 20 of those opt-ins.
Defendants shall elect one of the following two options to select
the 20 opt-in deponents: (1) defendants may select all 20
deponents, but will be precluded from any further depositions on
class-wide issues, regardless of the affidavits plaintiffs may
submit in the future, or (2) defendants may select 10 opt-in
deponents and plaintiffs may select 10 opt-in deponents, but
prospectively plaintiffs will be limited to submitting affidavits
on class-wide issues from the plaintiffs who have been deposed.
Plaintiffs' application to limit the duration of the depositions
is denied without prejudice to renewal should the questioning at a
deposition become irrelevant or repetitive. As explained above,
the parties' remaining disputes require further submissions before
they can be resolved."


JZANUS LTD: Suit Seeks Relief Under Fair Debt Collection Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Poroger, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Jzanus Ltd. and Todd W. Mittel, Esq., Case
No. 1:15-cv-01520 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) seeks relief over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


K2 XPRESS: "Shabbir" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faisal Shabbir, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, known and unknown v. K2 Xpress Delivery, LLC and Andreas
Rinaldo Makapedua, Case No. 1:15-cv-02535 (N.D. Ill., March 25,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
pre and post-judgment interest, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


LINCOLN LIFE: Sued in D.N.J. Over Alleged Shadow Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------
Gary F. Prestipino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York, Case No.
3:15-cv-02131 (D.N.J., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
engaged in shadow insurance practices by using collateral that is
designed to appear to its regulator and the public as permissible
collateral but, in fact, is insufficient to qualify for the
reserve credits that it claims.

Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York is a life insurance
company with its principal place of business in Syracuse, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Glen Abramson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUR PC
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (800) 424-6690
      E-mail: pmadden@bm.net
               scarson@bm.net
               gabramson@bm.net

          - and -

      John S. Skilton, Esq.
      David J. Harth, Esq.
      Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
      Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
      Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
      Rhett P. Martin, Esq.
      Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
      PERKINS COIE LLP
      One East Main Street, Suite 201
      Madison, WI 53703
      Telephone: (608) 663-7460
      Facsimile: (608) 663-7499
       E-mail: JSkilton@perkinscoie.com
               DHarth@perkinscoie.com
               TBurns@perkinscoie.com
               JBowen@perkinscoie.com
               FBowen@perkinscoie.com
               RMartin@perkinscoie.com
               JBair@perkinscoie.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Berg" Suit in Cal. Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Berg, Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Judy Happe Humes, Sherry
Kisielius, Theresa Labree, Brandon McDonald, Shari Orland, Carrie
Schafer, Cindy Terrazas, and Michael Zebley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01359 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
      Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
      FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
      2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
      San Ramon, CA 94583
      Telephone: (925) 543-2555
      Facsimile: (925) 369-0344
      E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com
              dem@fazmiclaw.com

         - and -

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
      E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      492 Ninth Street, Suite 260
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (415) 968-8999
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Lesley@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com
              Mark@blockesq.com
              Joel@blockesq.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Guest" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Guest, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01363 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              cdirksen@cerallp.com

         - and -

      Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
      BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      Two Penn Center
      1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 320
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 814-6750
      Facsimile: (215) 814-6764
      E-mail: ABolognese@bolognese-law.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Kelly and Charmaine Hurst, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01516 (E.D. Pa., March 25, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
      WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
      1845 Walnut St., Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 545-7200
      Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
      E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Omar Morris and Christina Morris, wife and husband on their own
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00675 (M.D. Fla., March 24, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory O'Dell Wiggins, Esq.
      Joshua R. Gale, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 - 19th St N
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0542
      E-mail: gwiggins@wcqp.com
              jgale@wcqp.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Said" Suit in N.Y. Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Said, Frank Graham, Pamela Marable, Paul Murtagh, Geresa
Orlik, and Constance Shannon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02262 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000
John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt D. Marshall, Esq.
      Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
      E-mail: cmarshall@weitzlux.com
              rgreenwald@weitzlux.com


MARINA DISTRICT: Removes "Motwani" Suit to District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Motwani, et al. v. Marina
District Development Company, LLC, Case No. BER-L-007276-15, was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02069-JLL-JAD
to the proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bruce W. Clark, Esq.
          CLARK LAW OFFICES P.A.
          103 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 955-3212
          E-mail: bruce.clark@lawclark.com

               - and -

          Russell L. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          COOPER, LEVENSON, PA
          1125 Atlantic Avenue, Third Floor
          Atlantic City, NJ 08401-4891
          Telephone: (609) 344-3161
          E-mail: rlichtenstein@cooperlevenson.com


MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiff's Bid for Sanctions Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted in part Plaintiff's motion
for sanctions for Defendants' alleged failure to produce discovery
previously ordered in the case captioned TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC
INC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-02219-HSG (DMR)(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005, challenging Defendants' alleged practice
of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, or so-called
"junk faxes."

On December 5, 2014, the court issued an order directing
Defendants to produce certain discovery.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for sanctions for Defendants' alleged failure to produce
discovery as orderd.

In an order dated April 1, 2015, available at http://is.gd/EvUTO6
from Leagle.com, Judge Ryu granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
sanctions.  Specifically, the Court said the Plaintiffs may seek
reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs.  The Plaintiffs were
directed to file by April 9, 2015, a fee motion.  The Court will
decide whether and when to set a hearing on the fee motion.

True Health Chiropractic Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C.
Schubert -- rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com , Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP, Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com ,
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, Brian John Wanca
BWanca@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca,Dustin Lamm Schubert
-- dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com , Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP,
George Demetrios Jonson, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Glenn L. Hara
-- GHara@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca, Matthew Elton
Stubbs, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Ross Michael Good --
RGood@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca & Ryan Michael Kelly
RKelly@andersonwanca.com , Anderson + Wanca.

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Brian John Wanca, Anderson + Wanca,Dustin Lamm Schubert,
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, George Demetrios Jonson,
Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Glenn L. Hara, Anderson + Wanca, Ross
Michael Good, Anderson + Wanca & Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

McKesson Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin French
Patterson, Morrison & Foerster &Tiffany Cheung, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

McKesson Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
French Patterson, Morrison & Foerster & Tiffany Cheung --
tcheung@mofo.com , Morrison & Foerster LLP.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Warren
Metlitzky, United States Attorney.


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Orozco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Orozco and Derrick Chambers, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Bank of America
Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-02213 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing financial
and investment services to customers across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      Katrina L. Eiland, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (347) 390-2187
      E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
              keiland@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Inmate's Claims vs. Wilcoxson-Bey
-----------------------------------------------------------
In LEONARD BRADFORD, # 131806, a/k/a LENARD BRADFORD-BEY,
Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HEYNS, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-
679, (W.D. Mich.), Leonard Bradford-Bey is a prisoner under the
control of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC).  He
named Director of MDOC Daniel Heyns, MDOC's Special Activities
Coordinator Michael Martin, and "chaplaincy board" member Robert
Wilcoxson-Bey as defendants. In addition, he named four MDOC
employees at ICF as defendants: Warden John Prelesnik, Chaplain
Gary Wyma, Mail Room Supervisor Mark Pattison, and Acting Deputy
Warden Cathleen Stoddard. He alleges violations of his religious
freedoms. Defendants Heyns, Martin, Pattison, Prelesnik, Stoddard,
and Wyma filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 24,
2015, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green issued a report, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/LkITJqfrom Leagle.com,
recommending that (1) the claims against Defendant Wilcoxson-Bey
be dismissed for failure to state a claim, (2) the claims against
Defendants Prelesnik, Wyma, Pattison, and Stoddard be dismissed as
moot, and (3) the motion for summary judgment be granted for the
claims against Defendants Heyns, Martin, Prelesnik, Wyma,
Pattison, and Stoddard.

In a memorandum opinion entered March 19, 2015, Chief District
Judge Paul L. Maloney adopted the report and recommendation over
objections as the opinion of the District Court.

"Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Wilcoxson-Bey are dismissed
for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted;
Plaintiff's claims against the defendants at ICF -- Prelesnik,
Wyma, Pattison, and Stoddard, are dismissed as moot; and
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted," Judge Maloney
wrote in his opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/l2bUCvfrom Leagle.com.

Leonard Bradford, plaintiff, Pro Se.

Daniel Heyns, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept
Attorney General.

Michael Martin, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI
Dept Attorney General.

Unknown Wilcoxson-Bey, defendant, Pro Se.

John Prelesnik, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI
Dept Attorney General.

G. Wyma, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept
Attorney General.

Unknown Pattison, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI
Dept Attorney General.

C. Stoddard, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept
Attorney General.


NARCONON REDWOOD: Falsely Marketed Programs, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Burgoon and Caleb Landers, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Narconon of Northern California
d/b/a Narconon Redwood Cliffs, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01381
(N.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' false
representation of their drug treatment program offered that it is
a standardized program marketed as treatment for individuals
dealing with some form of addiction. When in fact, it is not a
comprehensive drug and alcohol treatment program but rather
Scientology propaganda that consists entirely of Church of
Scientology practices and requires that Patients study Scientology
doctrines.

Narconon of Northern California owns and operates various drug
rehabilitation centers with a principal place of business in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Ram, Esq.
      Susan S. Brown, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
      E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
              sbrown@rocklawcal.com

         - and -

      David E. Miller, Esq.
      Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
      SAEED & LITTLE LLP
      1433 North Meridian Street, Suite 202
      Indianapolis, IN 46202
      Telephone: (317) 721-9214
      Facsimile: (888) 422-3151
      E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com
              ali@sllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com
              mreiten@tmdwlaw.com


NATIONAL UNION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Health Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Gonzales, Manette Dubuisson, and Alice Lacks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Union
Fire Insurance Of Pittsburgh, P.A., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02259
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), alleges that the Defendants issue
group and blanket accident and health insurance policies in New
York to eligible groups and entities and then to market coverage
under those policies with low cost introductory premiums to
individuals in New York that is illegal, against public policy and
under the New York law.

National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, P.A. is a division of
American International Group, Inc. that operates an insurance
company at 175 Water Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10038.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq.
      LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
      1325 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 763-8491
      Facsimile: (212) 763-8304
      E-mail: kmc@lhlaw.net

         - and -

      Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
      Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
      LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 560-2201
      Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
      E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net
              beb@lhlaw.net


NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Krady, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02087-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., March 23, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


PEGASO CORP: Accused of Discriminating Against Pregnant Employee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carla B. Ianni v. Pegaso Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-21149-MGC (S.D.
Fla., March 23, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff was subjected to
an unlawful act of discrimination, and was further subjected to
different terms and conditions of employment just because she was
pregnant.

Pegaso Corp., is a for-profit corporation authorized to conduct
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The Company provides
hotel reservation services to different hotels in the Miami area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PHARMACIA CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Lexington Case Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Town of Lexington filed a putative class action against
Pharmacia Corporation, Solutia, Inc., and Monsanto Company
alleging that the Defendants breached the implied warranty of
merchantability, based on design defect and failure to warn, in
their manufacture and sale of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Lexington also alleges violation of the Massachusetts consumer
protection act, Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A, Sections 2 and 9. Lexington
previously moved for class certification. Before the Court ruled
on that motion, Lexington moved for leave to file an amended
motion for class certification in which it amends its class
definition.

District Judge Denise J. Casper, in a memorandum and order entered
March 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/xhntiBfrom Leagle.com, held that since "the proposed
class is defined overly expansively, it fails the threshold
ascertainability inquiry required prior to certification, and the
Court is unable to analyze its viability under the requirements
set forth in Rule 23. Futility of amendment, along with the delay
and prejudice, warrants the Court's conclusion that Lexington
should not be permitted to amend its class definition."

For these reasons, the Court denies Lexington's motion for
certification of the class, as originally defined.  The Court also
denies Lexington's motion for leave to amend the class definition.
In light of this ruling, Westport's motion to intervene is denied
as moot.

The case is TOWN OF LEXINGTON, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION, SOLUTIA,
INC., and MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-CV-
11645, (D. Mass.).

Town of Westport, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Carla Burke
-- cburke@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald --
rgreenwald@weitzlux.com -- Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Todd D. Ommen,
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C.
& Richard M. Sandman, Rodman Rodman & Sandman.

Westport Community Schools, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Carla Burke, Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald, Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C., Todd D. Ommen, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William
A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Richard M. Sandman, Rodman
Rodman & Sandman.

Town of Lexington, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan S. Gowdy --
bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- Creed & Gowdy, P.A., David S. Mackey
-- dmackey@andersonkreiger.com -- Anderson & Kreiger LLP, Esther
L. Klisura -- eklisura@sherleff.com -- Sher & Leff, LLP, Jon-
Jamison Hill -- jhill@tocounsel.com --   Eisner Jaffe Gorry
Chapman & Ross, Kevin J. Madonna -- kmadonna@kennedymadonna.com --
Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Robert S. Chapman, Eisner Kahan Gorry
Chapman Ross & Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy -- mpostman@law.pace.edu -
- Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Melissa C. Allison --
mallison@andersonkreiger.com -- Anderson & Kreiger LLP & Scott P.
Lewis -- slewis@andersonkreiger.com -- Anderson & Kreiger LLP.

Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter -
- carol.rutter@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard
P. Campbell -- rpcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com --  Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck --
robyn.buck@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L.
Arber -- barber@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell,
Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang -- dchang@campbell-trial-
lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard
L. Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M.
Hickey, Campbell -- shickey@campbell-trial-lawyers.com --
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC.

Solutia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch
Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards &
Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell,
Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch
Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards &
Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell,
Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC.


PHARMACIA CORP: Court Wants Further Briefing on New Monsanto
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise J. Casper issued a memorandum and order in
the case captioned TOWN OF LEXINGTON, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PHARMACIA CORPORATION,
SOLUTIA, INC. and MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants, CIV. ACTION NO.
12-CV-11645, (D. Mass.).

The Town of Lexington brought this putative class action against
Pharmacia Corporation, Solutia Inc., and Monsanto Company alleging
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, due to design
defect and failure to warn, and violation of Massachusetts's
consumer protection statute, Chapter 93A, Sections 2, 9.
Defendants Solutia and New Monsanto moved for summary judgment.

The Court's March 24, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/bPqQNzfrom Leagle.com, denied the motion as to
Solutia and requested further briefing regarding New Monsanto.

According to Judge Casper, "The briefing provided by the parties
and Westport does not provide sufficient guidance regarding how to
reconcile the injunction carve-out and limited release in the Plan
on the one hand with the Settlement Agreement's indemnification
provision and the Separation Agreement's liability provision on
the other. The Court, therefore, allows leave to the parties and
Westport to file briefs on this issue of no more than ten pages
each on this singular issue. New Monsanto and Westport must file
their memoranda no later than April 7, 2015, with Lexington's
reply due ten days later, on April 21, 2015."

The Court reserved its decision regarding New Monsanto until it
has reviewed the requested additional briefing. Lexington's
request for judicial notice was allowed.

Town of Westport, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Carla
Burke, Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald, Weitz & Luxenberg,
P.C., Todd D. Ommen, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William A. Walsh,
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Richard M. Sandman, Rodman Rodman &
Sandman.

Westport Community Schools, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Carla Burke, Baron & Budd, P.C., Robin Greenwald, Weitz &
Luxenberg, P.C., Todd D. Ommen, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., William
A. Walsh, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Richard M. Sandman, Rodman
Rodman & Sandman.

Town of Lexington, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan S. Gowdy, Creed
& Gowdy, P.A., David S. Mackey, Anderson & Kreiger LLP, Esther L.
Klisura, Sher & Leff, LLP, Jon-Jamison Hill, Eisner Jaffe Gorry
Chapman & Ross, Kevin J. Madonna, Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Robert
S. Chapman, Eisner Kahan Gorry Chapman Ross & Jaffe, Robert F.
Kennedy, Kennedy & Madonna, LLP, Melissa C. Allison, Anderson &
Kreiger LLP & Scott P. Lewis, Anderson & Kreiger LLP.

Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter,
Husch Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell,
Edwards & Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon
L. Arber, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A.
Chang, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L.
Campbell, Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC.

Solutia, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch
Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards &
Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell,
Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Carol A. Rutter, Husch
Blackwell LLP, Richard P. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Edwards &
Conroy, PC, Robyn D Buck, Husch Blackwell LLP, Brandon L. Arber,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Diana A. Chang,
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Richard L. Campbell,
Campbell Campbell Edwards & Conroy PC & Sean M. Hickey, Campbell,
Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC.


PHILIP MORRIS: Fla. Supreme Court Revives Jury Verdict in "Hess"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acting on the petition for review in the case captioned ELAINE
HESS, etc., Petitioner, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Respondent,
No. SC12-2153 (Fla.), the Supreme Court of Florida:

     -- quashed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in
Philip Morris USA, Inc. V. Hess,

     -- approved Frazier v. Philip Morris USA Inc. to the extent
of its conclusion regarding the statute of repose, and

     -- approved Kush v. Lloyd and Laschke v. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp.

The Florida Supreme Court also reinstated a jury verdict.

Elaine Hess filed a complaint against Philip Morris USA, Inc. ("PM
USA"), in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward
County, asserting claims of strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, negligence and conspiracy to commit fraud.  The jury
awarded Mrs. Hess compensatory and punitive damages.  PM USA moved
for judgment as a matter of law on the fraudulent concealment
claim, but was denied by the trial court.

On appeal, the Fourth District reversed for entry of judgment in
PM USA's favor on the fraudulent concealment claim and punitive
damages award, and affirmed in all other respects.  Hess sought a
review of the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision.

The question brought before the state Supreme Court is whether
plaintiff's fraudulent concealment claim is barred because the
jury found no evidence of the smoker's reliance within the statute
of repose period.  In its decision dated April 2, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/XzVbiDfrom Leagle.com, the Supreme Court answered
in the negative because it is the defendant's last act or omision
which triggers the fraud statute of repose.  Accordingly, the
Court quashed the Fourth District's decision in Hess, approved
Frazier to the extent of its conclusion regarding the statute of
repose, and approved Kush and Laschke.  The Court reinstated the
jury verdict.

John Stewart Mills and Courtney Rebecca Brewer of The Mills Law
Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida; Gary Mark Paige --
gpaige@fortheinjured.com of Trop & Ameen, P.A., Davie, Florida and
Adam Trop of Trop & Ameen, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Bruce
S. Rogow and Tara A. Campion of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; Alex Alvarez -- Alex@integrityforjustice.com
of The Alvarez Law Firm, Coral Gables, Florida; and Marvin
Weinstein of Grover & Weinstein, P.A., Miami Beach, Florida, for
Petitioner.

Joseph Hagedorn Lang, Jr. -- jlang@cfjblaw.com of Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa, Florida; and Andrew Scott Brenner --
abrenner@bsfllp.com ,Patricia Melville -- pmelville@bsfllp.com ,
and Luis Eduardo Suarez -- lsuarez@bsfllp.com of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Miami, Florida; and Raoul G. Cantero, III --
rcantero@whitecase.com and John-Paul Rodriguez --
jrodriguez@whitecase.com of White & Case LLP, Miami, Florida, for
Respondent.

Steven L. Brannock -- sbrannock@bhappeals.com , Celene Harrell
Humphries -- chumphries@bhappeals.com , and Tyler K. Pitchford of
Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, Florida, for Amici Curiae Engle.


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chaim Schlussel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd., Case No.
1:15-cv-01512 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Chan" Suit Over Defective Dashboards
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Chan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02106 (D.N.J.,
March 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
or leased Porsche vehicles equipped with a Luxor Beige colored
dashboard that under normal driving conditions there is a very
noticeable, distracting, and unsafe windshield glare present,
which significantly impairs a driver's ability to see clearly
through the windshield.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is
engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing,
assembling, marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and
other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in New Jersey
and throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Santoli, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH R. SANTOLI
      340 Devon Court
      Ridgewood, NJ 07450-1810
      Telephone (201) 926-9200
      Facsimile (201) 444-0981
      E-mail: josephsantoli@aol.com


PRIVATE EYES: Court Dismisses Mykytyak-Penning's FLSA Case
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Crotty dismissed the case captioned
NATALIYA MYKYTYAK-PENNING, Plaintiff, v. PRIVATE EYES GENTLEMEN'S
CLUB a/k/a AAM HOLDING CORP., THREE B'S HOSPITALITY GROUP, a/k/a
XYZ CORP., BARRY LIPSITZ and BARRY LIPSITZ, JR., Defendants, NO.
14 CIV. 5152 (PAC), (S.D.N.Y.).

Ms. Mykytak-Penning brought this suit against her former employers
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), Sections
650 et seq.  Defendants moved to dismiss the action and compel
arbitration, pursuant to an arbitration agreement Penning signed
ten months prior to her commencement of the action.

Judge Crotty granted the motion and dismissed Ms. Mykytak-
Penning's complaint saying "Penning has asserted no other
explanation in support of the argument that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable; indeed, the entirety of her argument
rests on her classification of the agreement as an improper class
communication and vague suggestions that she signed the agreement
under duress. This is insufficient to show that the arbitration
agreement should not be enforced. Accordingly, the Court finds
these claims subject to arbitration."

A copy of the Court's March 16, 2015 opinion & order is available
at http://is.gd/eC40B0from Leagle.com.

Nataliya Mykytyak-Penning, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Jacques
Sasson -- alan@sassonlaw.com -- Law Office of Alan J. Sasson, P.C.
& Yitzchak Zelman -- yzelman@gmail.com -- Law Office of Alan J.
Sasson.

Private Eyes Gentlemen's Club, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
A. Kimmel -- jak@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein LLP,
Yitzchak Zelman, Law Office of Alan J. Sasson & Howard Scott Davis
-- hd@msf-law.com -- Meister Seelig & Fein LLP.

Barry Lipsitz, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel,
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP.

Barry Lipsitz, Jr., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel,
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP & Howard Scott Davis, Meister Seelig &
Fein LLP.


REALPAGE INC: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Stokes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Realpage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520 (E.D. Pa.,
March 25, 2015), arises out of the inaccurate background reports
sold by the Defendant to prospective landlords that caused harms
consumers seeking residential leases.

Realpage, Inc. is a consumer reporting agency that regularly
conducts business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC
      Land Title Bldg 19th Fl.100 S. Broad St
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
      E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


REDISCOVER: "Jones" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Jones, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Rediscover, Case No. 4:15-cv-00219 (W.D. Mo., March 26, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and related
penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rediscover is a Missouri Public Benefit Corporation doing business
in the State of Missouri and throughout the United States, with
its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri that
provides primary health care, outreach and behavioral health
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Paulus, Esq.
      HOLLINGSHEAD, PAULUS & ECCHER
      8350 North St. Clair Avenue, Suite 225
      Kansas City, MO 64151
      Telephone: (816) 581-4040
      Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
      E-mail: r.paulus@hpelaw.com


SAME DAY: Faces "Amaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Amaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Same Day Delivery Inc. and Benedito Ewerton, Case No.
1:15-cv-01572 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a courier and delivery service
company located at 6 Orangetown Ct., Orangeburg, NY 10962

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Sidney Almonrode, Esq.
      JTB LAW GOUP LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Corban" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Indira Talwani dismissed the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the case captioned MARK A. CORBAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC.; CHRIS GARABEDIAN; SANDY
MAHATME; and ED KAYE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-CV-10201-IT
(D. Mass.).

This putative federal securities class action lawsuit was filed by
the Plaintiffs who challenged statements and omissions by the
Defendants concerning eteplirsen -- Sarepta's leading drug
candidate for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint.

In a Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/VqbuQGfrom Leagle.com, the Court:

     -- found that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged
        any actionable misstatements or omissions; and

     -- granted Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Daniel Baradarian, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jason
M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com , Block & Leviton LLP.

Mark A Corban, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda B. Murphy --
abm@federmanlaw.com , Federman and Sherwood, William B. Federman
-- wbf@federmanlaw.com , Federman & Sherwood, Alan L. Kovacs --
akovacs@kovacslaw.com , Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs & Peter C.
Harrar -- harrar@whafh.com , Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz.

Bijesh Amin, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey C Block --
jeff@blockesq.com , Block & Leviton LLP.

Steve Fleischmann, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda B. Murphy,
Federman and Sherwood & William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Chris Garabedian, Sandy Mahatme, Ed
Kaye, Defendants, represented by Christopher G. Green --
Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com , Ropes & Gray, Alexia R. De
Vincentis -- Alexia.DeVincentis@ropesgray.com , Ropes & Gray &
Mark D. Vaughn -- Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com , Ropes & Gray.

Corban Group, Movant, represented by Lydia Keaney Reynolds --
Reynolds@whafh.com , Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz &
William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Alleged Mistreatment of Orcas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Hall, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00660 (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to disclose the truth about the conditions
and treatment of its captive orcas, specifically the impact on
these animals of captivity in a tiny confined space, the forced
separation of young whales from their mothers, the unnatural
mixing of whales that do not have the same culture in small
spaces, the forced breeding and inbreeding of young female whales,
the routine use of pharmaceutical products to unnaturally drug the
orcas, the psychological manipulation and at times food
deprivation to which they are subjected, the deep rake marks on
the bodies that result from incompatibility and cramped
conditions, and many other life shortening and painful experiences
from which they have no escape.

Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. is a marine-life theme park
headquartered in Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Shayne C. Stevenson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              shaynes@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
      E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


SHERMETA ADAMS: Obtains Initial Approval of "Roberts" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Roberts, and more than 8,000 others like him, received
debt-collection letters from Defendants Shermeta, Adams & Von
Allmen. Plaintiff contends the letters violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and so he filed a lawsuit. The parties
agreed to a settlement, and petitioned the Court to preliminarily
approve a class and the settlement agreement. The joint motion for
preliminary approval was referred to a magistrate judge, who held
a hearing and issued a report recommending the motion be approved.
The time for filing objections has passed. No objections have been
filed.

Accordingly, Chief District Judge Paul L. Maloney, in his order
dated March 26, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/qOa2rufrom Leagle.com, adopted the Report and
Recommendation as the opinion of the District Court. The joint
motion to certify class and approve class settlement agreement was
also granted.

The case is MICHAEL ROBERTS, Plaintiff, v. SHERMETA, ADAMS & VON
ALLMEN, P.C., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:13-CV-1241, (W.D. Mich.).

Michael Roberts, plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Rogers.

Shermeta, Adams & Von Allmen, P.C., defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Steven Hengeveld -- jhengeveld@plunkettcooney.com --
Plunkett Cooney.

Kyle J. Von Allmen, defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven
Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney.

Terri P. Gruca, defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven
Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney.

Tricia N. McKinnon, defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven
Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney.

Senex Services Corp., defendant, represented by Jeffrey Steven
Hengeveld, Plunkett Cooney.

George Zainea, movant, represented by Brian P. Parker --
brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- The Law Offices of Brian P.
Parker.


SONY COMPUTER: Deadline to Respond to Ladore Case on April 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case captioned DOUGLAS LADORE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SONY
COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendant, NO. 3:14-CV-03530-EMC, (N.D. Cal.) informed
the Court on March 2, 2015, of their agreement to settle
Plaintiff's claims and requested that the Case Management
Conference be continued while the Parties negotiate and
memorialize their agreement.  The Court granted the Parties'
request and re-set the Case Management Conference for April 2,
2015.

Since that time, the Parties have continued to negotiate and
finalize their settlement and anticipate that they will be in a
position to execute the agreement within, at most, 28 days.
Because the settlement will result in dismissal of this lawsuit, a
28-day extension of Defendant's deadline to respond to the
Complaint and continuance of the Case Management Conference would
conserve judicial and party resources.

Accordingly, District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on March 26,
2015, a stipulation and order wherein the parties agreed that
Defendant will have until April 23, 2015 to answer or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint.  The Case
Management Conference scheduled for April 2, 2015 is stricken and
reset for May 28, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. No further continuances will
be allowed. CMC statement is due 7 days before CMC.

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

Samuel Lasser -- slasser@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, San Francisco,
California, Jay Edelson* -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S.
Balabanian* -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Ari J. Scharg* --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Alicia E. Hwang* -- ahwang@edelson.com --
EDELSON PC Chicago, Illinois, *Admitted Pro Hac Vice ATTORNEYS FOR
PLAINTIFF.

LUANNE SACKS -- lsacks@srclaw.com -- MICHELE D. FLOYD --
mfloyd@srclaw.com -- SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP, San Francisco,
California ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
AMERICA, LLC.


SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Chandler, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. SNC-Lavalin Engineers and
Constructors Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00784 (S.D. Tex., March 25,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a construction business in Harris
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian Scharfman, Esq.
      THE SCHARFMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3120 SW Frwy, Ste 450
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (713) 255-2267
      Facsimile: (713) 255-2270
      E-mail: ian@scharfmanlawfirm.com


STEPHEN PHILPITT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Morisco, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Stephen R. Philpitt, Case No. 3:15-cv-02075-AET-DEA (D.N.J.,
March 23, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave, 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


STEVEN COHEN: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Noe, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Law Offices of Steven Cohen LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01516 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


STRATASYS LTD: Sued in Minn. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stratasys Ltd., David
Reis, Erez Simha and Shane Glenn, Case No. 0:15-cv-01592 (D.
Minn., March 25, 2015), 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.

Stratasys Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Israel with principal executive office located at 7665
Commerce Way, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344. It is engaged in the
business of additive manufacturing (AM), more commonly known as
three-dimensional (3D) printing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: 612-596-4097
      Facsimile: 612-339-0981
      E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
              khriebel@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Joseph D. Cohen, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              jcohen@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      Stephen J. Teti
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
              steti@scott-scott.com


THINKDIRECT MARKETING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Heckman, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Thinkdirect Marketing Group, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-00680 (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Thinkdirect Marketing Group, Inc. is a foreign corporation that
owns and operates a call center in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
      E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com


THOMSON SA: Court Orders Filing of Revised Notice of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL NO.
1917, CASE NO. C-07-5944-SC, (N.D. Cal.), the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' (DPPs)filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
class action settlement with Defendants Thomson SA (now known as
Technicolor SA) and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (now known
as Technicolor USA, Inc.).  The matter was initially set for
hearing on March 20, 2015, which the Court rescheduled for April
3, 2015. The parties subsequently filed a stipulation seeking to
move the rescheduled hearing, but because the Court finds no
hearing is necessary at this time, the hearing is vacated and the
stipulation is denied. Rather than decide the motion at this time,
the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file
supplemental submissions addressing the Court's concerns.

Specifically, District Judge Samuel Conti, in his order dated
March 26, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/9nzu9tfrom Leagle.com, said he has "three concerns
about the current form of notice and notice plan. First, the Court
believes the summary notice should be published in more than just
the Wall Street Journal. The parties should meet and confer and
agree on another national newspaper in which to publish notice and
submit a revised proposed order to that effect. Second, in light
of a previous issue with the parties' notice website,
www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, the Court requests
an additional submission (in declaration from the claims
administrator or in some other convenient form) assuring the Court
that the "Frequently Asked Questions" and "Dates to Remember"
pages will be updated promptly to reflect the opt-out deadline and
other important deadlines related to this settlement. Finally, for
similar reasons, the Court finds that the first page of the notice
should be edited to include the objection and opt-out deadlines
and the date, time, and place of the fairness hearing."

"The parties shall meet and confer and submit a revised form of
notice, proposed order, supplemental declaration, and any other
necessary documents within 14 days of the signature date of this
order," Judge Conti added.

The order relates to all direct purchaser actions.


VETSPECS INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Fauley, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. Vetspecs, Inc. and John Does 1-10,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02529 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2015), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Vetspecs, Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its principal place
of business in Canton, Georgia, which distributes veterinary
equipment and supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


WESTCONSIN CREDIT: McDonough, Eggen and Arnzen Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
In an order entered March 20, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/zK3Cg2from Leagle.com, District Judge Barbara B.
Crabb held that these three cases seem to be the same in almost
every way: PATRICK McDONOUGH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION,
Defendant. BRIAN EGGEN and MARY EGGEN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, WESTCONSIN CREDIT
UNION, Defendant. FRANK ARNZEN and RENA CLEVELAND, Plaintiffs,
WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Defendant, NOS. 14-CV-705-BBC, 14-CV-873-
BBC, 15-CV-29-BBC, (W.D. Wis.).

In each of the cases, she said, plaintiffs are alleging that
defendant WESTconsin Credit Union disclosed their Social Security
numbers and driver's license numbers in pleadings that defendant
filed in small claims court in cases related to defaults on
consumer loans. In each case, plaintiffs are asserting the same
causes of action under federal and state law. The same lawyers
represent the plaintiffs in all three cases. The plaintiffs in
each case allege that they are residents of St. Croix County,
Wisconsin.

Despite all of these similarities, plaintiffs chose to file three
separate cases instead of one. She added that even more confusing
is that two of the three cases are proposed class actions that
include the same proposed class: "All Wisconsin Residents about
whom Defendant WESTconsin has disclosed personal driver's license
or social security information in filings in public court for
actions to recover unpaid loan balances."

Although the plaintiffs in the third case are Wisconsin residents
as well, that case was filed separately in state court before it
was removed by defendant. Plaintiffs have not explained why they
filed these cases separately instead of jointly as a single class
action.

"Regardless of the reasons the parties chose to proceed as they
did up until now, I see no reason why these cases should proceed
separately in any respect in light of the many similarities among
the cases. Although defendant requests consolidation with respect
to discovery alone, defendant identifies no reason why it would be
improper to try these cases together, particularly if a class is
certified. Accordingly, I am granting the motion to consolidate,
but I am consolidating for all purposes rather than for discovery
only," Judge Crabb ruled.

"Case nos. 14-cv-705-bbc, 14-cv-873-bbc and 15-cv-29-bbc are
consolidated for all purposes. The schedule set in case no. 14-cv-
873-bbc, shall apply in all three cases, including the September
19, 2016 trial date. If any party believes that a separate trial
is necessary, that party may seek reconsideration of this decision
at the appropriate time," Judge Crabb concluded.

Bradley Eggen, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Leighton Crandall --
eric29@frontiernet.net -- Crandall Law Offices, SC, Thomas John
Lyons, Jr. -- tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com -- Consumer Justice Center,
P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA.

Mary Eggen, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Leighton Crandall,
Crandall Law Offices, SC, Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice
Center, P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA.

WESTconsin Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Michael Patrick
Crooks -- mcrooks@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C. &
Quentin Fitch Shafer, McCollister, Shafer & Stewart.


WHIRLY WEST: Faces "Belfiore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Belfiore and Aaron Alicea, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Whirly West, Inc., d/b/a
Whirlyball and Samuel Elias, Case No. 1:15-cv-02532 (N.D. Ill.,
March 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, ID 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com
              jzouras@stephanzouras.com


YOUKU TUDOU: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qiang Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Youku Tudou Inc., Victor Wing Cheung Koo, and Michael
Ge Xu, Case No. 1:15-cv-02258 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015), 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.

Youku Tudou Inc. purports to be China's leading Internet
television company. Its platforms enable users to search, view and
share high-quality video content quickly and easily across
multiple devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis Paul McConville, Esq.
      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
              jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP
      60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Denies Insurer Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire Insurance Company has settled, along with several
affiliated liability insurers under common corporate control
hundreds of millions of dollars of claims -- most but not all of
which are asbestos-related personal injury claims -- with nonparty
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, a common insured of the
settling carriers.  American International Group's settlement
agreement with Kaiser does not address the allocation of losses to
particular claims, policies or carriers beyond providing that AIG
may effect such an allocation "for its own purposes, in its own
books and records," which AIG has done.  That allocation ascribes
100% of the settlement amount to asbestos product liability claims
within the coverage of Kaiser's New Hampshire excess policy
(issued for the period from June 1973 to June 1976) and none of
the amount to other settled claims -- for bad faith, defense costs
in addition to policy limits, and premises liability -- that
Kaiser had asserted against certain other AIG carriers, but not
against New Hampshire.

New Hampshire brought an action against defendant Clearwater
Insurance Company, a reinsurer of the excess policy New Hampshire
issued to Kaiser, seeking to require Clearwater to indemnify New
Hampshire for the share prescribed by its reinsurance certificate
of the portion of the Kaiser settlement payments (which are being
made over a 10-year period) that AIG has allocated to the New
Hampshire policy.  In its defense, Clearwater challenges AIG's
allocation of 100% of the settled losses to asbestos products
liability claims, contending that this allocation unreasonably
results in the reinsured New Hampshire policy bearing part of the
cost of settling the premises, bad faith and defense cost claims
that Kaiser had not asserted against New Hampshire or that were
not covered by the New Hampshire policy.  Clearwater also asserts,
as additional affirmative defenses, that New Hampshire (known as
the ceding company, or "cedent," in reinsurance nomenclature) has
breached its contractual notice, reporting and risk retention
obligations under the terms of the reinsurance certificate.

While discovery was in its early stages, and before any witnesses
had been deposed, New Hampshire moved for summary judgment in its
favor.  Concerning the allocation issue, New Hampshire argued that
Clearwater, as a reinsurer, was bound, as a matter of law, by New
Hampshire's allocation of settled claims to the reinsured policy
under general principles of the law of reinsurance.

The Supreme Court, New York County, entered an order on Nov. 1,
2013, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to
the extent of dismissing the defendant's second, third, and
seventh affirmative defenses, and otherwise denied the motion.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a March 24, 2015, opinion, agreed with Supreme
Court that New Hampshire's argument is unavailing.  The Appellate
Division held that even if the subject reinsurance certificate, in
spite of its lack of a clause expressly so providing, generally
obligates Clearwater to "follow the settlements" made by New
Hampshire with its insured -- a question that the Appellate
Division need not, and do not, decide on this appeal -- the
cedent's allocation decisions are not "immune from scrutiny."

In particular, even where the "follow the settlements" doctrine
applies, the reasonableness of a cedent's decision not to
attribute any portion of a settlement to settled claims that were
not covered by the reinsured policy may, on a proper record,
present an issue of fact, the Appellate Division said.

Accordingly, given the undeveloped factual record of the case, the
Appellate Division held that the Supreme Court properly denied New
Hampshire summary judgment on the allocation issue.  However, also
in view of the undeveloped state of the record, the Appellate
Division held that the court erred in granting New Hampshire
summary judgment dismissing Clearwater's affirmative defenses
alleging that New Hampshire breached its notice, reporting and
risk retention obligations under the reinsurance certificate.  The
Appellate Division therefore modifies the order under review to
deny New Hampshire's summary judgment motion in its entirety.

The case is NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant-
Respondent, v. CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent-
Appellant, 653547/11, 12779 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/VfodQWfrom Leagle.com.

Sidley Austin LLP, New York (William M. Sneed, Esq. --
wsneed@sidley.com -- of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted
pro hac vice, and Alan J. Sorkowitz, Esq. -- asorkowitz@sidley.com
-- of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Crowell & Moring LLP, New York (Harry P. Cohen, Esq. --
hcohen@crowell.com -- and Brian J. O'Sullivan, Esq. --
bosullivan@crowell.com -- of counsel), for respondent-appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dutch Parent Co. Dismissed from Ky. Enviro. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington,
granted Koninklijke Philips, N.V.'s motion to dismiss the sister
environmental mass tort lawsuits alleging that Corning
Incorporated and Philips Electronics North America Corporation, as
owners and operators of a glass manufacturing facility in
Danville, Kentucky, intentionally or negligently emitted and
disposed of hazardous chemicals, including asbestos, during the 60
years of the Facility's operation, polluting the groundwater, air,
and soil within a five-mile radius.

Judge Van Tatenhove found that it has no jurisdiction over KPNV,
the Dutch parent company to Philips Electronics, and held that
"[w]hen a defendant does not regularly do or solicit business in
Kentucky, does not derive substantial revenue from goods used or
consumed in Kentucky, and when any injury in Kentucky did not
arise out of doing or soliciting business in Kentucky, Kentucky
courts simply do not have jurisdiction over the defendant."

In the same case, Judge Van Tatenhove also granted in part and
denied in part Corning and Philips' motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but denied Corning and Philips'
motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations.

The cases are MODERN HOLDINGS, LLC, GAY BOWEN, GREENLEAF PLANT
FOOD WHOLESALE, INC., and BOBBIE LEMONS, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING
INCORPORATED, KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants. ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL
WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY
PENNINGTON, TERESA PRESTON, BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL NOS. 13-405-GFVT, 13-406-GFVT (E.D.
Ky.).

A full-text copy of Judge Van Tatenhove's March 31, 2015,
memorandum opinion and order relating to KPNV's motion to dismiss
is available at http://is.gd/ewVk5qfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Van Tatenhove's March 31, 2015,
memorandum opinion and order relating to Corning and Philip's
motions to dismiss is available at http://is.gd/AHzHyAfrom
Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Van Tatenhove's March 31, 2015,
memorandum opinion and order relating to the motion to strike is
available at http://is.gd/0NbnuWfrom Leagle.com.

Modern Holdings, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald
Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. -
- jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- & Richard A. Getty, Esq. --
rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- The Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Gay Bowen, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty
Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Greenleaf Plant Food Wholesale, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine
Winters & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Bobbie Lemons, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A.
Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Otis Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty
Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Charles Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A.
Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Rosetta Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A.
Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Gary Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The Getty
Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters & Richard A. Getty, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC.

Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by George L. Seay,
Jr., Esq. -- gseay@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs LLP.

Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Joseph F. Madonia,
Esq. -- joseph.madonia@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg.

Corning Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Mark L. Durbin,
Esq. -- mdurbin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Peter N. Moore,
Esq. -- Peter.Moore@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg & George J.
Miller, Esq. -- gmiller@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Brian M.
Johnson, Dickinson Wright PLLC, David Andrew Owen, Dickinson
Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Brian M. Johnson, Esq. --
BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, David
Andrew Owen, Esq. -- DOwen@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright
PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett, Esq., Dickinson Wright PLLC.

Elbert Cox, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Cecil Wayne Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald
Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary
Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty
Law Group, PLLC.

John Spears, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Wanda Beasley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Donald King, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Lindsey Pennington, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann
Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law
Group, PLLC.

Teresa Preston, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Beverly Presley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam Clay Reeves, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP,
Brian M. Johnson, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett,
Dickinson Wright PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Group Can File Amicus Brief in NY PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York granted the motion by New York
State Trial Lawyers Association for leave to file a brief amicus
curiae on the appeal in the lawsuit styled IN THE MATTER OF NEW
YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. DORIS KAY DUMMITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD DUMMITT, Deceased,
Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO.,
Appellant, MOTION NO. 2015-334 (N.Y. App.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision dated March 26, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/Z4FafEfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Inks Settlement in "Mann" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in a memorandum and order dated
March 25, 2015, denies all motions pending in the asbestos-related
lawsuit styled HELEN MANN, Special Administrator for the Estate of
JW HEGGIE, Plaintiff, v. ANCHOR PACKING COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 94-CV-04219-JPG, NO. 08-CV-89372 (S.D. Ill.),
in light of the settlement between the plaintiffs and the sole
remaining defendant, CBS Corporation.  A full-text copy of Judge
Gilbert's Decision is available at http://is.gd/QihAB2from
Leagle.com.

Helen Mann, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino,
Vaughn Law Offices.

Anchor Packing Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge, Esq. -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- Segal, McCambridge
et al., Joshua B. Murphy, Esq., Segal, McCambridge et al. &
William F. Mahoney, Esq. -- wmahoney@smsm.com -- Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Kent L. Plotner, Heyl, Royster et al..

Coltec Industries, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William F. Mahoney,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Garlock Inc, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge,
Segal, McCambridge et al., Joshua B. Murphy, Segal, McCambridge et
al. & William F. Mahoney, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian S. Ebener, Hinshaw &
Culbertson.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Denis P. Rischard, no
current cases, Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al., Murray E.
Abowitz, P. Terence Crebs, Herzog, Crebs et al., R. Delacy Peters,
Jr., Gonzalez, Saggio et al., Jacob D. Sawyer, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1.6-Mil. Verdict in "Kaenzig" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in an
opinion dated March 27, 2015, affirmed a jury verdict awarding
plaintiffs Steven G. Kaenzig and Linda Kaenzig $1.6 million in
compensatory damages in an asbestos-related lawsuit asserting
claims of negligence and products liability against several
defendants, including Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.

The case is STEVEN G. KAENZIG and LINDA KAENZIG, Plaintiffs-
Respondents, v. CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC.; R.T. VANDERBILT
COMPANY, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Gouverneur Talc Company, Inc., and International Talc Company;
SHULTON INC., individually and as successor to the Shulton Group
and Shulton, Inc. (for discovery purposes only); WYETH HOLDINGS
CORPORATION f/k/a/ American Cyanamid Company, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Shulton Inc. (for discovery purposes
only); AMERICAN TALC CO., individually and as successor in
interest to Suzorite Mineral Products, Inc., f/k/a Pioneer Talc
Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wold Companies; IMERYS TALC
AMERICA, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Rio
Tinto, a wholly owned subsidiary of Luzenac Inc., RTZ Corp.,
Cyprus Mineral Co. a/k/a Cyprus Windsor Mineral Co., Windsor
Minerals Inc., Metropolitan Talc, Co., Inc., Charles Mathieu,
Inc., Defendants, and WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendant-
Appellant, NO. A-2512-13T3 (N.J. Super.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/ZwFAhnfrom Leagle.com.

Richard J. Mirra, Esq. -- rmirra@hoaglandlongo.com -- argued the
cause for appellants (Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas, LLP,
attorneys; Mr. Mirra, of counsel and on the briefs).

Jeffrey P. Blumstein, Esq. -- jblumstein@szaferman.com -- argued
the cause for respondents (Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader,
P.C. and Levy Konigsberg, LLP, attorneys; Robert E. Lytle, Esq. --
RLytle@szaferman.com -- and Moishe Maimon, on the brief).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of Aviva's Suit vs. Flintkote Transferred
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonard P. Stark of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, in a March 25, 2015, memorandum opinion
granted in part Aviva PLC's motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, transfer venue of its lawsuit against The Flintkote
Company to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The case is THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AVIVA P.L.C.,
formerly known as COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
Defendant, C.A. NO. 13-103-LPS (D. Del.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Stark's Decision is available at http://is.gd/9xtNZIfrom
Leagle.com.

Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Kelly,
Esq. -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP, Michael
Collins Smith, Esq. -- msmith@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English,
LLP, Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- &
Louis A. Chiafullo, Esq. -- lchiafullo@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP.

Aviva PLC, formerly known as Commercial Union Assurance Company
Ltd., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. McColgan, II, Fred L.
Alvarez & Thaddeus James Weaver, Esq. -- tweaver@dilworthlaw.com -
- Dilworth Paxson LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Workers' Suit vs. Philips Partially Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a putative class action lawsuit, former employees at a glass
manufacturing facility in Danville, Kentucky, allege that their
employer, Philips Electronics North America, knowingly exposed
them to hazardous substances, including asbestos, mercury,
arsenic, lead, PCB compounds, used in the production process and
falsely assured them that their working conditions were safe.

Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington,
granted in part and denied in part Philips' motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  Specifically, Judge Van Tatenhove dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims, except its claims for fraud and
fraudulent concealment, and allowed the plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint.

The case is ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN SPEARS,
WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON, TERESA PRESTON,
and BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS, N.V., and
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants, CIVIL
NO. 13-406-GFVT (E.D. Ky.).  A full-text copy of Judge Van
Tatenhove is available at http://is.gd/pwrNe7from Leagle.com.

Elbert Cox, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Cecil Wayne Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald
Rice, The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary
Ann Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty
Law Group, PLLC.

John Spears, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Wanda Beasley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Donald King, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Lindsey Pennington, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann
Getty, The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law
Group, PLLC.

Teresa Preston, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Beverly Presley, Plaintiff, represented by Evan McDonald Rice, The
Getty Law Group, PLLC, Jessica Katherine Winters, Mary Ann Getty,
The Getty Law Group, PLLC & Richard A. Getty, The Getty Law Group,
PLLC.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam Clay Reeves, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP,
Brian M. Johnson, Dickinson Wright PLLC & Matthew A. Stinnett,
Dickinson Wright PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grainger's Bid to Junk "Brigantino" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, industrial equipment
supplier W.W. Grainger, Inc., moves for summary judgment
dismissing plaintiffs Thomas Brigantino and Phyllis Brigantino's
complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it.  In
opposition, the plaintiffs allege that Grainger is liable because
it sold plaintiff Thomas Brigantino several of the asbestos-
containing products to which he was exposed.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler, in a decision and order dated March
11, 2015, denied Grainger's motion, holding that as the record
currently stands, the court essentially has before it nothing more
than conflicting assertions and, under well-settled New York law,
the respective weight to be given to the competing assertions in
this case must be decided by a jury at trial.

The case is THOMAS BRIGANTINO and PHYLLIS BRIGANTINO, Plaintiffs,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190390/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 013 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/xbFjDLfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Issues Records Protocol in 6 PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Madison Division,
issued an order establishing a records collection protocol and
procedures relating to the authorization for release of medical,
healthcare, pharmacy, bankruptcy trusts and other records in the
asbestos-related personal injury cases captioned Boyer, v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; Masephol, v. Weyerhaeuser Company,
et al.; Pecher, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; Prust, v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, et al.; Seehafer, v. Weyerhaeuser Company,
et al.; and Sydow, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al., CASE NOS. 14-
CV-286, 14-CV-186, 14-CV-147, 14-CV-143, 14-CV-161, 14-CV-219
(W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate Crocker's Order dated
March 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AG3Ppdfrom
Leagle.com.

Wesley F. Sydow, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Alyssa R. Segawa, Galiher
DeRobertis Waxman, James Nicholas Hoey, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices, Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices,
Ltd..

Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua J. Metcalf,
Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Ruth F. Maron, Forman Watkins
Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Tanya D. Ellis, Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy,
LLP.

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

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Smitha Chintamaneni, von Briesen & Roper & William P. Croke, von
Briesen & Roper, s.c..

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

Marshfield DoorSystems, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Sherry Dawn Coley, Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. & Joshua Lee
Johanningmeier, Godfrey & Kahn S.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Grants BNSF's Writ of Mandate Petition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Real parties in interest Vicki L. Kralovetz, individually and in
her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Peter J.
Kralovetz, Aaron Kralovetz, and Sarah Kralovetz, filed a wrongful
death action against BNSF Railway Company's predecessor in
interest and numerous other defendants in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, alleging that decedent Peter J. Kralovetz
developed and died from malignant pleural mesothelioma as a result
of exposure to the defendants' "asbestos, asbestos-containing
products and/or products designed to be used in association with
asbestos products."  The exposure attributed to BNSF allegedly
occurred in Wichita, Kansas, where the decedent once worked at a
dismantling facility and roundhouse owned by BNSF's predecessor.

BNSF filed a petition seeking a writ of mandate directing a trial
court to vacate its order denying its motion to quash service of
process for lack of general personal jurisdiction.  The Court of
Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, in an
decision dated March 27, 2015, denied the request for judicial
notice, concluding that general jurisdiction is lacking in this
case, and granted the petition for writ of mandate.

The case is BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent; VICKI L. KRALOVETZ,
Individually and as Executor, etc., Real Parties in Interest, NO.
B260798 (Cal. App.).  The decision is available at
http://is.gd/7qIGonfrom Leagle.com.

Sims Law Firm, Selim Mounedji and Brock Christensen for
Petitioner.

The Lanier Law Firm, Mark Douglas Bratt, Alexandra Shef, and
Stephanie M. Taylor; The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin, for Real
Parties in Interest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated reported that the liability for the amended
plan of its subsidiary, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, and the
non-PCC asbestos litigation was estimated to be $681 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The liability for the Amended Plan of Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation ("PCC") and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated
to be $681 million at December 31, 2014, compared with an estimate
of liability of $690 million at December 31, 2013. The $681
million liability is comprised of $241 million of the fair value
of Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), $290 million for the
fixed series of payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC
asbestos litigation.

With respect to the PCE liability, at December 31, 2014 and 2013,
the fair value of $241 million and $250 million of our interest in
PCE significantly exceeded its carrying value of $162 million and
$167 million, respectively. There have been no impairment
indicators for our investment in PCE and we continue to recognize
equity earnings of this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded
this liability, it determined it lacked the ability to recover the
carrying amount of its investment in PCC and its investment was
other than temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our
investment in PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is
significantly higher than book value, management believes that the
risk of an additional loss in an amount materially higher than the
fair value of the liability is remote. With respect to the
liability for other asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC
claims was estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims
since Corning does not have recent claim history due to the
injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability
represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal
fees over the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in
future periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot
estimate any additional losses at this time. For the years ended
December 31, 2014 and 2013, Corning recorded asbestos litigation
income of $9 million and expense of $19 million, respectively. The
entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability, as
installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are
not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the
Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the
obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of
Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current
other equity method investment).

Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be
affected by the potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously
contesting these cases, and management is unable to predict the
outcome of the litigation.

Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced
Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning
Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc
announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $513 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

In October 2014, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2014. The resulting study, completed by ARPC in
December 2014, estimates that the undiscounted cost of disposing
of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem,
excluding future defense and processing costs, to be between $540
million and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of
September 30, 2014. As in earlier studies, ARPC provided longer
periods of time in its December 2014 study, but also reaffirmed
that forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate than
those for longer periods of time.

In December 2014, based on ARPC's December 2014 study and Union
Carbides's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution
activity, Union Carbide determined that an adjustment to the
accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim
activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December
2012 study. Accordingly, Union Carbide increased its asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million.
At December 31, 2014, the asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $513 million. At December 31, 2014,
approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future
claims. At December 31, 2013, approximately 19 percent of the
recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 81
percent related to future claims.

The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and
technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of
products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of
customer products and services. The Company serves various
industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural;
building and construction; chemical processing; electronics;
furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings
and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods;
pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water
treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based
products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries
and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and
agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments:
Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure
Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials,
Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company disclosed that its subsidiary, Union
Carbide, had $79 million receivables related to its asbestos-
related liability, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014.

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

In September 2003, Union Carbide filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding
their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate
an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since
the filing of the case, Union Carbide has reached settlements with
most of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation and
continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining carrier. Union
Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was $10 million at December 31, 2014 and $25
million at December 31, 2013.

At December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, all of the receivable
for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, Union Carbide had receivables for defense
and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have
settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage. Union Carbide's receivables related to its
asbestos-related liability was $79 million.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, Union Carbide continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was
$108 million in 2014, $107 million in 2013 and $100 million in
2012, and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated
statements of income.

The amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable were based upon
current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among
insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for Union Carbide to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of the uncertainties, Union Carbide's management cannot
estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem.
Union Carbide's management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on Union Carbide's results of operations and cash flows for
a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of
Union Carbide.

It is the opinion of Dow's management that it is reasonably
possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos-
related claims, including future defense costs, could have a
material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash
flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial
position of the Company.

The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and
technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of
products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of
customer products and services. The Company serves various
industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural;
building and construction; chemical processing; electronics;
furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings
and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods;
pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water
treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based
products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries
and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and
agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments:
Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure
Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials,
Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had 41,100 pending asbestos claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 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.

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 December 31, 2014, the Company had pending
approximately 41,100 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 45,150 as of December 31, 2013 and 45,900 as of
December 31, 2012. During 2014, the Company received approximately
3,880 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 7,930 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 2014 and 2013 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $11 million
and $29 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.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease. The predominant number of claims against the
Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the
pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed
injury. 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.

The Company from time to time receives claims from federal and
state environmental regulatory agencies and other entities
asserting that it is or may be liable for environmental cleanup
costs and related damages principally relating to historical and
predecessor operations of the Company. In addition, the Company
from time to time receives personal injury claims including toxic
tort and product liability claims (other than asbestos) arising
from historical operations of the Company and its predecessors.

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: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., reported $485 million total
insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities for NARCO
and Bendix, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury
actions related to two predecessor companies:

* North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in
1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high
temperature applications). Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing
refractory products in an occupational setting.

* Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in
2014, manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist
largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes
from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total
asbestos-related balance was $1,552 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total
insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities was $485
million.

In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30,
2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was
established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and
future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are
protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust
reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in
accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved
by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants
must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other
things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award
amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide,
input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO
claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the
claims processors' adherence to the established requirements of
the Trust Distribution Procedures.

Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of $140 million in the years 2015 through 2018 and
$145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100
million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial
Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any
unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized. As of December 31, 2014,
Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual
Contribution Claims.

Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under
the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which
amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid
during the initial years of trust operations ($3 million of which
was paid in 2014). Such payments are not subject to the annual
cap.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for pre-established unliquidated claims
($147 million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO
filed for bankruptcy protection ($39 million) and for the
estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be
asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In
the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the
estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value of asbestos
related future liabilities, including trust claim handling costs,
based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous
bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Some critical
assumptions underlying this methodology include claims filing
rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust
Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims
submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies
estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in a range
of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe
that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any
other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount
in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making
long-term projections and in connection with the recent
implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO
Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which
remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not
believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO
asbestos claims beyond 2018.

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

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact
insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business
operations through four businesses that are reported as operating
segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance
Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The
Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013,
of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., reported 9,267 unresolved Bendix-
related asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

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

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually
filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix-
related asbestos claims. It has valued Bendix pending and future
claims using average resolution values for the previous five
years. The Company updates the resolution values used to estimate
the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth
quarter each year.

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

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

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

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business
operations through four businesses that are reported as operating
segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance
Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The
Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013,
of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded an expense of $0.9 million for
the years ended December 31, 2014, net of probable insurance
recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors, and are subject to policy limits, so
we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and
judgments. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, we
recorded expense of $0.9 million and $6.3 million, respectively,
net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future
asbestos-related litigation.

"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations in a future period."

Lennox International Inc., is a provider of climate control
solutions and design, manufacture and market a broad range of
products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration ("HVACR") markets. The Company was founded in 1895,
in Marshalltown, Iowa, by Dave Lennox, the owner of a machine
repair business for railroads. He designed and patented a riveted
steel coal-fired furnace, which led to numerous advancements in
heating, cooling and climate control solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation provided an undiscounted liability related
to premises asbestos claims of $12 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve
exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly
owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never
manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos.
Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or
Illinois and involve multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual
for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected
insurance recoveries.

"The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to
currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions
and factors:

* We are often one of many defendants. This factor influences both
the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity cost
associated with such resolutions.

* The estimated percent of claimants in each case that will
actually, after discovery, make a claim against us, out of the
total number of claimants in a case, is based on a level
consistent with past experience and current trends.

* We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the
basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims.
These claims are filed by both former contractors' employees and
former employees who worked at past and present company locations.
We also include an estimated inflation factor in the calculation.

* No estimate is made for unasserted claims.

* The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle
Corporation (a former operation of our company) for these cases
are based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement
agreements with Travelers Indemnity Company.

"Based on these assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted
liability related to premises asbestos claims of $12 million at
both December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The liabilities
related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses
(current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are
recoverable through our insurance coverage and an agreement with
Albemarle Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries related
to premises asbestos liabilities was $7 million at December 31,
2014 and $6 million at December 31, 2013. These receivables are
included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The
noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and other
assets."

NewMarket Corporation (NewMarket) (NYSE: NEU) is a holding company
and is the parent company of Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton),
Ethyl Corporation (Ethyl), NewMarket Services Corporation
(NewMarket Services), and NewMarket Development Corporation
(NewMarket Development).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Units Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation's subsidiaries continues to defend themselves
against a large number of lawsuits that claim asbestos-related
personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

Certain subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components
that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were
acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by
any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries
producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured
products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally
were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries'
customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The Company states: "We have projected each subsidiary's future
asbestos-related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. This methodology is based
upon risk equations, exposed population estimates, mortality
rates, and other demographic statistics. In applying the Nicholson
methodology for each subsidiary we performed: (1) an analysis of
the estimated population likely to have been exposed or claim to
have been exposed to products manufactured by the subsidiaries
based upon national studies undertaken of the population of
workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos; (2) a review of
epidemiological and demographic studies to estimate the number of
potentially exposed people that would be likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases in each year; (3) an analysis of the
subsidiaries' recent claims history to estimate likely filing
rates for these diseases and (4) an analysis of the historical
asbestos liability costs to develop average values, which vary by
disease type, jurisdiction and the nature of claim, to determine
an estimate of costs likely to be associated with currently
pending and projected asbestos claims. Our projections, based upon
the Nicholson methodology, estimate both claims and the estimated
cash outflows related to the resolution of such claims for periods
up to and including the endpoint of asbestos studies. It is our
policy to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs
for the longest period of time that we can reasonably estimate.
Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any costs which may
be paid after the next 15 years.

"Projecting future asbestos-related liability costs is subject to
numerous variables that are difficult to predict, including, among
others, the number of claims that might be received, the type and
severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the latency
period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs
of medical treatment, the financial resources of other companies
that are co-defendants in the claims, funds available in post-
bankruptcy trusts, uncertainties surrounding the litigation
process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case,
including fluctuations in the timing of court actions and rulings,
and the impact of potential changes in legislative or judicial
standards, including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any
projections with respect to these variables are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. These
trend factors have both positive and negative effects on the
dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system and the related
best estimate of our asbestos liability, and these effects do not
move in linear fashion but rather change over multiple year
periods. Accordingly, we monitor these trend factors over time and
periodically assess whether an alternative forecast period is
appropriate. Taking these factors into account and the inherent
uncertainties, we believe that we can reasonably estimate the
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will
be resolved in the next 15 years and have recorded that liability
as our best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, we do not believe
the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss
is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no accrual has been
recorded for any costs which may be paid after the next 15 years.
Defense costs associated with asbestos-related liabilities as well
as costs incurred related to litigation against the subsidiaries'
insurers are expensed as incurred.

"We assessed the subsidiaries' existing insurance arrangements and
agreements, estimated the applicability of insurance coverage for
existing and expected future claims, analyzed publicly available
information bearing on the current creditworthiness and solvency
of the various insurers, and employed such insurance allocation
methodologies as we believed appropriate to ascertain the probable
insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities. The analysis took
into account self-insurance retentions, policy exclusions, pending
litigation, liability caps and gaps in coverage, existing and
potential insolvencies of insurers as well as how legal and
defense costs will be covered under the insurance policies.

"Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
our ownership of each independent entity. In our evaluation of the
insurance asset, we use differing insurance allocation
methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the applicable law
pertaining to the affected subsidiary.

"Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flow."

Colfax Corporation is an industrial manufacturing and engineering
company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication
technology products and services to commercial and governmental
customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid
Handling brand names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has 21,681 Unresolved Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 21,681 unresolved asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Certain subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large
number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with components
that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were
acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by
any of the Company's subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries
producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured
products that are alleged to have contained asbestos generally
were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries'
customers, including the U.S. Navy.

The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company
considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each
claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant
has fluctuated during the past several years. The Company expects
such fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among
other things, the number and type of claims settled in a
particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims
arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed
for no payment.

For the year-ended December 31, 2014, the Company's unresolved
asbestos-related claims were 21,681.

Colfax Corporation is an industrial manufacturing and engineering
company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication
technology products and services to commercial and governmental
customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid
Handling brand names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $346-Mil. Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation disclosed that its long-term asbestos liability
was $346,099,000 as of December 31, 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company has projected each subsidiary's future asbestos-
related liability costs with regard to pending and future
unasserted claims based upon the Nicholson methodology. The
Nicholson methodology is a standard approach used by experts and
has been accepted by numerous courts. It is the Company's policy
to record a liability for asbestos-related liability costs for the
longest period of time that it can reasonably estimate.

The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims that will be
resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible loss is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after
the next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation
against the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred.

Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
Company ownership of each independent entity. In its evaluation of
the insurance asset, the Company used differing insurance
allocation methodologies for each subsidiary based upon the
applicable law pertaining to the affected subsidiary.

For one of the subsidiaries, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled
on October 14, 2009, that asbestos-related costs should be
allocated among excess insurers using an "all sums" allocation
(which allows an insured to collect all sums paid in connection
with a claim from any insurer whose policy is triggered, up to the
policy's applicable limits) and that the subsidiary has rights to
excess insurance policies purchased by a former owner of the
business. Based upon this ruling mandating an "all sums"
allocation, as well as more recent rulings by the Delaware
Superior Court concerning the subsidiary's coverage rights, the
Company currently estimates that the subsidiary's future expected
recovery percentage is approximately 93% of asbestos-related costs
with the subsidiary expected to be responsible for approximately
7% of its future asbestos-related costs. Depending on the outcome
of the appeal, the expected insurance recovery percentage could
change.

The subsidiary was notified in 2010 by the primary and umbrella
carrier who had been fully defending and indemnifying the
subsidiary for 20 years that the limits of liability of its
primary and umbrella layer policies had been exhausted. Since
then, the subsidiary has sought coverage from certain excess layer
insurers whose terms and conditions follow form to the umbrella
carrier. Certain first-layer excess insurers have defended and/or
indemnified the subsidiary, subject to their reservations of
rights and their applicable policy limits. A trial concerning the
payment obligations of the Company's excess insurers concluded
during the fourth quarter of 2012 and the Superior Court issued a
final judgment during the third quarter of 2014. Appeals have been
entered. The subsidiary has been largely unsuccessful in obtaining
defense and indemnity payments from its excess insurers. While not
impacting the results of operations, the Company has funded $60.3
million that it expects its excess insurers to ultimately
reimburse through December 31, 2014, and until the final rulings
ordering payment by the insurers are issued, cash funding could
range up to $10 million per quarter until final resolution. Due to
a statistically significant increase in mesothelioma and lung
cancer claims and higher settlement values per claim that have
occurred and are expected to continue to occur in certain
jurisdictions, partially offset by lower claims and lower
settlement values per claim in other jurisdictions, the Company
recorded a $0.6 million pre-tax charge during year ended December
31, 2013, which was included in Selling, general and
administrative expense in the Consolidated Statements of
Operations. The pre-tax charge was comprised of an increase in
asbestos-related liabilities of $10.8 million partially offset by
an increase in expected insurance recoveries of $10.2 million. Due
to a higher number of asbestos claims settlements and a decline in
the insurance recovery rate that have occurred, the Company
recorded a $6.9 million pre-tax charge during the year ended
December 31, 2014, comprised of an increase in asbestos-related
liabilities of $14.5 million partially offset by an increase in
expected insurance recoveries of $7.6 million.

In 2003, another subsidiary filed a lawsuit against a large number
of its insurers and its former parent to resolve a variety of
disputes concerning insurance for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims asserted against it. Although none of these insurance
companies contested coverage, they disputed the timing,
reasonableness and allocation of payments.

For this subsidiary, it was determined by court ruling in 2007
that the allocation methodology mandated by the New Jersey courts
will apply. Further court rulings in December of 2009 clarified
the allocation calculation related to amounts currently due from
insurers as well as amounts the Company expects to be reimbursed
for asbestos-related costs incurred in future periods.

In connection with this litigation, the court engaged a special
master to review the appropriate information and recommend an
allocation formula in accordance with applicable law and the facts
of the case. During 2010, the court-appointed special allocation
master made its recommendation. In May 2011, the court accepted
the recommendation with modifications. A final judgment at the
trial court level in this litigation was rendered during the year
ended December 31, 2011. The Appellate Division confirmed the
trial court rulings during the year ended December 31, 2014, but
appeals have been entered. The subsidiary expects to be
responsible for approximately 19.5% of all future asbestos-related
costs.

As of December 31, 2014, the Company's long-term asbestos
liability was $346,099,000.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Colfax Corporation is an industrial manufacturing and engineering
company that provides gas- and fluid-handling and fabrication
technology products and services to commercial and governmental
customers around the world under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid
Handling brand names.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation continues to defend itself against a number
of lawsuits seeking to recover damages for asbestos-related
personal injury, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury
allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products
manufactured and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the
past. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims has
generally declined in recent years, there can be no assurance that
this trend will continue, or that the average cost per claim will
not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated
into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal
components of process equipment, and we do not believe that any
significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of
this equipment.

"Our practice is to vigorously contest and resolve these claims,
and we have been successful in resolving a majority of claims with
little or no payment. Historically, a high percentage of resolved
claims have been covered by applicable insurance or indemnities
from other companies, and we believe that a substantial majority
of existing claims should continue to be covered by insurance or
indemnities. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our
estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a
related receivable from insurers or other companies for our
estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of
recovery are probable and not otherwise in dispute. While
unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms regarding these
claims could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, we
currently believe the likelihood is remote.

"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter. We are currently unable to estimate the impact, if any,
of unasserted asbestos-related claims, although future claims
would also be subject to then existing indemnities and insurance
coverage."

Flowserve Corporation is a manufacturer and aftermarket service
provider of comprehensive flow control systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 73,800 Fibro Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous
defendants in legal proceedings involving 73,800 claimants
relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are currently one of numerous defendants
in legal proceedings in certain state and Federal courts involving
approximately 73,800 claimants at December 31, 2014 relating to
their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in
products allegedly manufactured by us or asbestos materials
present at our facilities. We manufactured, among other things,
rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through
1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials
prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors
or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working
at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial
portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a
Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in
our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on
defense and claim resolution was approximately $20 million during
2014. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were
exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from
various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma
and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and
punitive damages and other relief."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes tires for most applications. The Company
also manufactures and markets rubber-related chemicals for various
applications. It is an operator of commercial truck service and
tire retreading centers. In addition, the Company operates
approximately 1,200 tire and auto service center outlets where its
offers its products for retail sale and provides automotive repair
and other services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Disposed 109,500 PI Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company has disposed of approximately
109,500 asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits
alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to
result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products
manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts. As of December 31, 2014,
we have disposed of approximately 109,500 claims by defending and
obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement.
The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross
payments to as of December 31, 2014, including legal costs, by us
and our insurers totaled approximately $458 million through
December 31, 2014 and $432 million through December 31, 2013.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $151 million and $145
million at December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.
The recorded liability represents our estimated liability over the
next ten years, which represents the period over which the
liability can be reasonably estimated. Due to the difficulties in
making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change
in circumstances arising in the future could result in an increase
in the recorded obligation in an amount that cannot be reasonably
estimated, and that increase could be significant. The portion of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims and
related defense costs was $84 million at December 31, 2014 and $78
million at December 31, 2013. At both December 31, 2014, and 2013,
our liability with respect to asserted claims and related defense
costs was $67 million.

"We maintain primary insurance coverage under coverage-in-place
agreements, and also have excess liability insurance with respect
to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal
counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our
insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations
of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine
an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We
record a receivable with respect to such policies when we
determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate
the amount of a particular recovery.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $71
million at December 31, 2014 and $75 million at December 31, 2013.
We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos claim related losses
would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period
covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $13 million
was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at
December 31, 2014 and $11 million at December 31, 2013. The
recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect
under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary carriers
as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from
certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at December 31, 2014, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis,
pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements at December 31, 2014.

"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims, and the
receivable for recoveries from insurance carriers recorded in
respect of these claims, reflects reasonable and probable
estimates of these amounts, subject to the exclusion of claims for
which it is not feasible to make reasonable estimates. The
estimate of the assets and liabilities related to pending and
expected future asbestos claims and insurance recoveries is
subject to numerous uncertainties, including, but not limited to,
changes in:

* the litigation environment,

* Federal and state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants,

* recoverability of receivables due to potential insolvency of
carriers,

* our approach to defending and resolving claims, and

* the level of payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts.

"As a result, with respect to both asserted and unasserted claims,
it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of
cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts
cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies
is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims
including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs.
product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products
or premises and disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of
these characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company develops, manufactures,
markets, and distributes tires for most applications. The Company
also manufactures and markets rubber-related chemicals for various
applications. It is an operator of commercial truck service and
tire retreading centers. In addition, the Company operates
approximately 1,200 tire and auto service center outlets where its
offers its products for retail sale and provides automotive repair
and other services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navigators Group Has $10.2MM Fibro Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
The Navigators Group, Inc., has $10,291,000 net reserves for
asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Our exposure to Asbestos Liability
principally stems from Marine Liability insurance written on an
occurrence basis during the mid-1980s. In general, our
participation on such risks is in the excess layers, which
requires the underlying coverage to be exhausted prior to coverage
being triggered in our layer. In many instances, we are one of
many insurers who participate in the defense and ultimate
settlement of these claims, and we are generally a minor
participant in the overall insurance coverage and settlement.

"The reserves for asbestos exposures as of December 31, 2014 are
for: (i) one large settled claim for Excess insurance policy
limits exposed to a class action suit against an insured involved
in the manufacturing or distribution of asbestos products being
paid over several years and (ii) attritional asbestos claims that
could be expected to occur over time. Substantially all of our
Asbestos Liability reserves are included in our Marine loss
reserves. For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company
recognized a benefit of $2.1 million as a result of settlements
with third party administrators on ceded paid losses previously
written off in prior years due to bankruptcy or insolvency of the
reinsurer.

"There can be no assurances that material loss development may not
arise in the future from existing asbestos claims or new claims
given the evolving and complex legal environment that may directly
affect the outcome of the asbestos exposures of our insureds.

"For the year-ended December 31, 2-14, the Company's net reserves
for asbestos exposure was $10,291,000."

The Navigators Group, Inc., is an international insurance company
focusing on specialty products within the overall property and
casualty insurance market.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Has 13 Pending Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 13 pending asbestos cases,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The
Company currently has 102 pending silica cases and 13 pending
asbestos cases. These totals include 30 silica cases against AMCOL
International Corporation and/or its subsidiary, American Colloid
Company, that were pending on the date we acquired AMCOL. As of
December 31, 2014, 1,394 silica cases and 39 asbestos cases have
been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL. No new asbestos or silica cases were filed in the third
quarter of 2014. Two new asbestos cases were filed in the fourth
quarter of 2014.

"Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to
assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found
liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional
claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its
subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount
of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such
claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

"The Company has not settled any silica or asbestos lawsuits to
date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior
to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an
amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because
state court pleading practices do not require identifying the
amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company
for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to
be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these
cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are
reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain
agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial
public offering in 1992. Of the 13 pending asbestos cases
excluding the case against AMCOL/American Colloid, all allege
liability based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the
initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore
entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. Our
experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs
in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay
any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

Minerals Technologies Inc., is a resource- and technology-based
company that develops, produces, and markets on a worldwide basis
a broad range of specialty mineral, mineral-based and synthetic
mineral products and supporting systems and services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Reports $681MM Non-PCC Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated reported that the liability for the amended
plan of its subsidiary, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, and the
non-PCC asbestos litigation was estimated to be $681 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The liability for the Amended Plan of Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation ("PCC") and the non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated
to be $681 million at December 31, 2014, compared with an estimate
of liability of $690 million at December 31, 2013. The $681
million liability is comprised of $241 million of the fair value
of Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), $290 million for the
fixed series of payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC
asbestos litigation.

With respect to the PCE liability, at December 31, 2014 and 2013,
the fair value of $241 million and $250 million of our interest in
PCE significantly exceeded its carrying value of $162 million and
$167 million, respectively. There have been no impairment
indicators for our investment in PCE and we continue to recognize
equity earnings of this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded
this liability, it determined it lacked the ability to recover the
carrying amount of its investment in PCC and its investment was
other than temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our
investment in PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is
significantly higher than book value, management believes that the
risk of an additional loss in an amount materially higher than the
fair value of the liability is remote. With respect to the
liability for other asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC
claims was estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims
since Corning does not have recent claim history due to the
injunction issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability
represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal
fees over the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in
future periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot
estimate any additional losses at this time. For the years ended
December 31, 2014 and 2013, Corning recorded asbestos litigation
income of $9 million and expense of $19 million, respectively. The
entire obligation is classified as a non-current liability, as
installment payments for the cash portion of the obligation are
not planned to commence until more than 12 months after the
Amended PCC Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the
obligation will be fulfilled through the direct contribution of
Corning's investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current
other equity method investment).

Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies, including rights that may be
affected by the potential resolutions. Corning is vigorously
contesting these cases, and management is unable to predict the
outcome of the litigation.

Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced
Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning
Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc
announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Had $513-Mil. Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $513 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

In October 2014, Union Carbide requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2014. The resulting study, completed by ARPC in
December 2014, estimates that the undiscounted cost of disposing
of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem,
excluding future defense and processing costs, to be between $540
million and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of
September 30, 2014. As in earlier studies, ARPC provided longer
periods of time in its December 2014 study, but also reaffirmed
that forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate than
those for longer periods of time.

In December 2014, based on ARPC's December 2014 study and Union
Carbides's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution
activity, Union Carbide determined that an adjustment to the
accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim
activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December
2012 study. Accordingly, Union Carbide increased its asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million.
At December 31, 2014, the asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $513 million. At December 31, 2014,
approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future
claims. At December 31, 2013, approximately 19 percent of the
recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 81
percent related to future claims.

The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and
technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of
products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of
customer products and services. The Company serves various
industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural;
building and construction; chemical processing; electronics;
furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings
and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods;
pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water
treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based
products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries
and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and
agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments:
Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure
Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials,
Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Unit Had $79MM Fibro Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company disclosed that its subsidiary, Union
Carbide, had $79 million receivables related to its asbestos-
related liability, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2014.

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

In September 2003, Union Carbide filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that are not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place with Union Carbide regarding
their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to facilitate
an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance policies
and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may raise. Since
the filing of the case, Union Carbide has reached settlements with
most of the carriers involved in the Insurance Litigation and
continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining carrier. Union
Carbide's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its
asbestos liability was $10 million at December 31, 2014 and $25
million at December 31, 2013.

At December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013, all of the receivable
for insurance recoveries was related to insurers that are not
signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do not otherwise
have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, Union Carbide had receivables for defense
and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have
settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related
insurance coverage. Union Carbide's receivables related to its
asbestos-related liability was $79 million.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits,
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, Union Carbide continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

Union Carbide expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax
impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was
$108 million in 2014, $107 million in 2013 and $100 million in
2012, and was reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated
statements of income.

The amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable were based upon
current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among
insurers, and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for Union Carbide to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of the uncertainties, Union Carbide's management cannot
estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem.
Union Carbide's management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on Union Carbide's results of operations and cash flows for
a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of
Union Carbide.

It is the opinion of Dow's management that it is reasonably
possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos-
related claims, including future defense costs, could have a
material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash
flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial
position of the Company.

The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and
technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of
products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of
customer products and services. The Company serves various
industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural;
building and construction; chemical processing; electronics;
furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings
and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods;
pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water
treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based
products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries
and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and
agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments:
Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure
Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials,
Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 41,100 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation had 41,100 pending asbestos claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 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.

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 December 31, 2014, the Company had pending
approximately 41,100 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 45,150 as of December 31, 2013 and 45,900 as of
December 31, 2012. During 2014, the Company received approximately
3,880 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket
approximately 7,930 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 2014 and 2013 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax benefits were approximately $11 million
and $29 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.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos-
related disease. The predominant number of claims against the
Company are non-cancer claims. In a substantial number of the
pending claims, the plaintiff has not yet identified the claimed
injury. 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.

The Company from time to time receives claims from federal and
state environmental regulatory agencies and other entities
asserting that it is or may be liable for environmental cleanup
costs and related damages principally relating to historical and
predecessor operations of the Company. In addition, the Company
from time to time receives personal injury claims including toxic
tort and product liability claims (other than asbestos) arising
from historical operations of the Company and its predecessors.

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: Honeywell Int'l Has $485MM Fibro Recoveries
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., reported $485 million total
insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities for NARCO
and Bendix, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury
actions related to two predecessor companies:

* North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in
1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high
temperature applications). Claimants consist largely of
individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing
refractory products in an occupational setting.

* Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in
2014, manufactured automotive brake parts that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist
largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes
from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total
asbestos-related balance was $1,552 million.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, NARCO and Bendix's total
insurance recoveries for asbestos-related liabilities was $485
million.

In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30,
2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was
established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and
future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are
protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust
reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in
accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved
by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants
must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other
things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award
amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide,
input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO
claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the
claims processors' adherence to the established requirements of
the Trust Distribution Procedures.

Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of $140 million in the years 2015 through 2018 and
$145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100
million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial
Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any
unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized. As of December 31, 2014,
Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual
Contribution Claims.

Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants
pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of
the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to
submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under
the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution
Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which
amounts are estimated at $150 million and are expected to be paid
during the initial years of trust operations ($3 million of which
was paid in 2014). Such payments are not subject to the annual
cap.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for pre-established unliquidated claims
($147 million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO
filed for bankruptcy protection ($39 million) and for the
estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be
asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In
the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the
estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value of asbestos
related future liabilities, including trust claim handling costs,
based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous
bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Some critical
assumptions underlying this methodology include claims filing
rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust
Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims
submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies
estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in a range
of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe
that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any
other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount
in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making
long-term projections and in connection with the recent
implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO
Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which
remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not
believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO
asbestos claims beyond 2018.

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

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact
insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business
operations through four businesses that are reported as operating
segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance
Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The
Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013,
of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,267 Unresolved Bendix Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., reported 9,267 unresolved Bendix-
related asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

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

The Company's consolidated financial statements reflect an
estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually
filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix-
related asbestos claims. It has valued Bendix pending and future
claims using average resolution values for the previous five
years. The Company updates the resolution values used to estimate
the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth
quarter each year.

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

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

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

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. The Company is serving customers globally
with aerospace products and services, control, sensing and
security technologies for buildings, homes and industry,
turbochargers, automotive products, specialty chemicals,
electronic and advanced materials, process technology for refining
and petrochemicals, and energy efficient products and solutions
for homes, business and transportation. It manages its business
operations through four businesses that are reported as operating
segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance
Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. The
Company had approximately 131,000 employees at December 31, 2013,
of which approximately 51,000 were located in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Records $900,000 Fibro Expense
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. recorded an expense of $0.9 million for
the years ended December 31, 2014, net of probable insurance
recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors, and are subject to policy limits, so
we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and
judgments. For the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, we
recorded expense of $0.9 million and $6.3 million, respectively,
net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future
asbestos-related litigation.

"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations in a future period."

Lennox International Inc., is a provider of climate control
solutions and design, manufacture and market a broad range of
products for the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration ("HVACR") markets. The Company was founded in 1895,
in Marshalltown, Iowa, by Dave Lennox, the owner of a machine
repair business for railroads. He designed and patented a riveted
steel coal-fired furnace, which led to numerous advancements in
heating, cooling and climate control solutions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Had $12-Mil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
NewMarket Corporation provided an undiscounted liability related
to premises asbestos claims of $12 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in personal injury
lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos. These cases involve
exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly
owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never
manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos.
Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or
Illinois and involve multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual
for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected
insurance recoveries.

"The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to
currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions
and factors:

* We are often one of many defendants. This factor influences both
the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity cost
associated with such resolutions.

* The estimated percent of claimants in each case that will
actually, after discovery, make a claim against us, out of the
total number of claimants in a case, is based on a level
consistent with past experience and current trends.

* We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the
basis for estimating pending premises asbestos related claims.
These claims are filed by both former contractors' employees and
former employees who worked at past and present company locations.
We also include an estimated inflation factor in the calculation.

* No estimate is made for unasserted claims.

* The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle
Corporation (a former operation of our company) for these cases
are based on, and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement
agreements with Travelers Indemnity Company.

"Based on these assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted
liability related to premises asbestos claims of $12 million at
both December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2013. The liabilities
related to asbestos claims are included in accrued expenses
(current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are
recoverable through our insurance coverage and an agreement with
Albemarle Corporation. The receivable for these recoveries related
to premises asbestos liabilities was $7 million at December 31,
2014 and $6 million at December 31, 2013. These receivables are
included in trade and other accounts receivable, net on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current portion. The
noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and other
assets."

NewMarket Corporation (NewMarket) (NYSE: NEU) is a holding company
and is the parent company of Afton Chemical Corporation (Afton),
Ethyl Corporation (Ethyl), NewMarket Services Corporation
(NewMarket Services), and NewMarket Development Corporation
(NewMarket Development).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prison Terms Loom in Michigan Fibro Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that three
people face possible prison terms after pleading guilty to
illegally removing asbestos from a former Southwest Michigan power
plant.  They also agreed to reimburse the federal government for
the approximately $1 million that the Environmental Protection
Agency spent to clean up the contaminated facility in Kalamazoo
County's Comstock Township.

Investigators believe the case "may be the largest asbestos
release in Michigan since it was declared a hazardous air
pollutant in 1971," the U.S. Attorney's office in Grand Rapids
said.  The trio's illegal activity spanning more than a year in
2011-12 imperiled the environment, as well as the health of the
public and laborers on the project, according to the EPA.

Scientists have linked asbestos to serious health dangers such as
lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis and nonmalignant lung
disorders.

When federal agents obtained a warrant to search the
decommissioned facility, they discovered "substantial amounts of
asbestos-containing material had been illegally removed and thrown
onto the floor or placed in hundreds of unlabeled plastic garbage
bags," a court document said.

According to the plea agreements, LuAnne LaBrie of Kalamazoo, Cory
Hammond of Hastings and Robert White of Kalamazoo agreed to
salvage "valuable material" from the facility, sell it to
recyclers and split the profits.

Although the trio knew there was insulation containing asbestos on
pipes and elsewhere in the building, they violated the Clean Air
Act by failing to notify the EPA and state about the work and
failed to properly handle the material to prevent release of
asbestos particles, the U.S. Attorney's office said.

LaBrie headed a company called B&B Enterprises and Environmental
LLC that owned the facility, and she visited the site regularly
while the work was underway. White and Hammond were the on-site
supervisors of the salvage operation.

Court documents didn't specify the number of laborers who worked
on the operation and were exposed to asbestos, and the U.S.
Attorney's office said it couldn't comment on that until after
sentencing.

The trio grossed about $1.7 million from sale of the recyclable
material before EPA shut down the operation, court documents show.
Under their arrangement, LaBrie was to receive 70 percent of the
profits and White and Hammond were to divvy up the other 30
percent.

In a separate but related case, LaBrie has pleaded guilty to two
charges of failing to file her 2011 and 2012 federal tax returns
on time to report the $1.7 million in gross income.  She's
scheduled for sentencing in April. White and Hammond face
sentencing in July.  The maximum penalty for the Clean Air Act
violation is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Investigators came from the IRS and Michigan Department of Natural
Resources as well as the EPA.

Consumers Energy began running the power plant in 1939 and sold it
in 1983, the company said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Children of Mesothelioma Victim File Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Motherwell Times reported that the children of a Craigneuk,
Scotland, engineer are taking legal action after their father died
of a disease linked with being exposed to asbestos.

Former Ravenscraig worker Neil McKenna died in December 2013 aged
90 after a short battle with mesothelioma.  Now his children, John
(57) and Leonora (60) have instructed lawyers at Irwin Mitchell
Scotland to investigate how he was exposed to the deadly dust and
fibres that caused his death.

The family's legal team at Irwin Mitchell Scotland would like to
hear from anyone who worked at Yarrows from 1939-47, and
Ravenscraig in the 1960s, in particular retired engineers who
worked alongside Neil at these companies.

John and Leonora believe their father worked with asbestos paste,
also known as monkey dung paste, which would be mixed on site and
led to dust and fibres being released into the working atmosphere.

Laura McCallum, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell Scotland in Glasgow, said: "In our work we regularly see
the devastating impact asbestos exposure can have on workers,
often decades after they inhaled the substance, and the lack of
safety measures and warning in place for those working with the
material on a day-to-day basis.

"We believe that Neil was exposed to asbestos via lagging on pipes
and boilers, as the material was often broken up and disturbed
when work and repairs were being carried out.

"We also believe Neil worked with asbestos paste and we would like
to hear from any former employees of Yarrows Shipbuilders and
Ravenscraig Steel Works who can provide further information on
Neil's exposure to asbestos.

"We would also like to hear about the working conditions at both
companies and the protective equipment provided to protect workers
from exposure to the deadly substance, or if they were warned
about the dangers of asbestos by their employers."

John added: "Myself and Leonora were absolutely heartbroken to see
Dad suffer in the way he did. We were even more angry to find out
that the mesothelioma may have been caused by his exposure to
asbestos during his working life.

"We are all devastated by the loss of Dad and are still struggling
to come to terms with it. We hope that his former colleagues will
be able to provide the information we need to see justice done in
his name.

"Of course, no amount of money will replace the hole in our lives
left when Dad died, but we feel those who failed to protect him
from asbestos should be held accountable."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mo. Appeals Court Revives Courthouse Fibro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a Missouri court
of appeals revived a proposed class action that claims Jackson
County and mechanical contractor U.S. Engineering Co. mishandled
renovation work on the Jackson County courthouse in the 1980s and
exposed its occupants to asbestos.

The appeals court reversed a decision by the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, which had denied class certification in
the suit brought by plaintiff David Elsea. The proposed class of
plaintiffs included both Missouri and Jackson County employees who
worked in the courthouse for a certain amount of time between 1983
and the present, as well as other Missouri residents who had
worked in the courthouse since then, according to the opinion.

The appeals court ruled that the lower court abused its discretion
in finding that the plaintiffs had not met the typicality or
commonality requirements for certification, among other things.
For example, the lower court had found that the plaintiffs in the
proposed class had likely experienced different levels of asbestos
exposure, which would mean the lead plaintiffs' claims were not
typical of all proposed class members.

But the court ruled that regardless of potentially different
exposures, all the plaintiffs' claims stem from the same alleged
conduct by the defendants, according to the opinion.

"Plaintiffs' claims raise asbestos exposure issues harmonious with
all putative class members as to the event or course of conduct
that caused the asbestos exposure -- defendants' work at the
courthouse in 1983-84," the panel said.

Jackson County had contracted with U.S. Engineering around 1983 to
renovate the courthouse's air-handling units, pipe-fittings and
insulation, according to opinion. The plaintiffs, who filed their
suit in 2010, claim that during the process, the contractor cut
through pipes wrapped in insulation, which dispersed dust around
the courthouse because the contractor had not shut off the air-
handling units.

"Dust containing asbestos fibers was blown and tracked throughout
the courthouse resulting in layers of dust accumulated throughout
the courthouse and described by one witness as an asbestos powder
coating 'that you could run your hands through,' it covered
'everything in various offices,' and 'it would be on the floors
and get walked out of the entrance to the air handlers and then
tracked through the [common] areas . . . and . . . courtrooms,'"
the panel observed in its opinion.

Since asbestos does not decay, the plaintiffs argue, the
contaminant will remain in the courthouse for "decades" unless it
is properly cleaned up, according to court documents.

The plaintiffs had argued that their exposure to this asbestos
warrants a medical monitoring program for detection and diagnosis
purposes, according to their suit.

The plaintiffs are represented by Louis C. Accurso, Burton S.
Haigh and Cory L. Atkins of The Accurso Law Firm, Edward D.
Robertson, Jr., Mary D. Winter and Anthony L. DeWitt of Bartimus
Frickleton Robertson Goza.

The defendants are represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Anthony J.
Romano, Travis L. Salmon, and Jennifer J. Eng of Polsinelli LLP,
and Mark G. Arnold and Matthew R. Grant of Husch Blackwell LLP.

The case is David M. Elsea et al. v. U.S. Engineering Co. et al.,
case number WD77687, in the Missouri Court of Appeals Western
District.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lismore Man Fined for Dumping Toxic Dust
---------------------------------------------------------
The Northern Star reported that the City Council of Lismore, in
New South Wales, has fined a 36-year-old man $4000 for dumping
asbestos, and are sending a strong warning to anyone else thinking
of illegal dumping.

Council said the man dumped 220kg of asbestos-contaminated
material on Boatharbour Road and was tracked down following the
thorough investigative work of a Council Compliance Officer.

Council's Manager Development & Compliance Peter Jeuken said the
material had to be removed by a licensed asbestos contractor and
would only have cost the man approximately $120 to dispose of
legally as a result of EPA subsidies.

"People are trying to avoid paying quite reasonable fees, only to
be lumped with a large fine, and in the meantime they are putting
people and the environment at risk," Mr Jeuken said.

"The material samples taken at this particular dump site were sent
for analysis and tested positive to two types of asbestos.

"This stuff has the potential to kill people. It is unbelievable
that some people think they can simply take hazardous waste into
rural areas, dump it and there will be no consequence.

"Illegal dumping is a crime that places the health and wellbeing
of other people at risk and significantly impacts the health of
our environment. That's why we are making a concerted effort to
crack down on illegal dumping."

The fine follows on from a $50,000 court penalty imposed on a
Ballina-based construction company that Council found dumping
large quantities of waste material including asbestos at Woodlawn.

In the next six months, Council will be installing a minimum of
seven surveillance cameras in known dumping hotspots throughout
the Lismore Local Government Area to try and weed out offenders.

Environmental Compliance Officers recently underwent training with
the NSW EPA in the operation of the cameras as part of the Illegal
Dumping Prevention Project being managed across the region by NE
Waste.

Cameras have been used successfully in other regional areas across
NSW to gather evidence and catch illegal dumpers.

"The chances of dumpers getting caught are steadily increasing as
a result of ongoing staff training and improvements in our
investigation techniques," Mr Jeuken said.

"Lismore City Council spends in the excess of $100,000 per year
cleaning up dumped waste from riverbanks, reserves, roadsides and
parks.

"This is money that could be better spent in other areas of
Council operations to improve services and amenity."

NSW dumping fines for non-hazardous waste offences are $2000 for
individuals and $4000 for corporations. Hazardous waste including
asbestos fines are $4000 for individuals and $8000 for
corporations.

Dumpers are also required to clean up dumped materials or pay for
clean-up costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Indiana Court Refuses to Dismiss Fibro Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Indiana federal court has
denied an asbestos plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the
lawsuit with prejudice, saying that the plaintiff's additional
request for leave to reinstate the action should the settlement
talks fall apart is not proper under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In the March 16 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana explained that when a suit is dismissed with
prejudice, it is gone and the "district court cannot adjudicate
disputes arising out of the settlement that led to the dismissal
merely by stating that it is retaining jurisdiction."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Dumped on Adelaide Beach
----------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reported that a large amount of
asbestos has been found dumped on a beach in Adelaide, Australia.

CFMEU SA secretary Dave Kirner says he was tipped off about the
waste at Pelican Point, northwest of Adelaide, by an environmental
group.  He says he found asbestos submerged in piles of corrugated
roofing material and dumped in bags when he inspected the beach.

"There's about a tonne of asbestos in three piles," he told ABC
radio.

"In our view it was probably a commercial contract job and they've
gone and made a bigger profit on the job by going and dumping this
asbestos."

The beach is a popular spot for quad bikers who may have driven
over the asbestos, Mr Kirner says.

"When I was there, there was a family there with a five-year-old
kid," he said.

"There's community interaction all around the asbestos, so we want
to get it stopped straight away."

The Environment Protection Authority has sent an emergency
response team to the site to take samples of the asbestos.

Individuals caught dumping waste can be jailed for a maximum of
two years or fined up to $120,000.

Businesses can face fines of up to $250,000.

"The EPA takes these matters very seriously and has acted swiftly
to ensure that public health and safety of the environment are not
compromised," spokesman Andrew Wood said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Trust Transparency Bill Signed Into Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that West
Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin has signed Senate Bill 411, also
known as the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act and
the Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities Act.

Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael, R-Jackson; Senator Ryan Ferns,
R-Ohio; Senator Ed Gaunch, R-Kanawha; and Senator Jeff Mullins,R-
Raleigh, also were sponsors of the bill. The measure, which was
sponsored by Kanawha County Republican Senator Tom Takubo, will
establish legal standards and procedures for the handling of
certain asbestos and silica claims. Additionally, it creates
medical criteria procedures, statute of limitations standards, and
requires disclosure of existing and potential asbestos bankruptcy
trust claims.

"We applaud Governor Tomblin for signing into law Senate Bill 411,
the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act," said Roman
Stauffer, executive director of West Virginia Citizens Against
Lawsuit Abuse. "This legislation passed the State Senate and House
of Delegates with strong bi-partisan support because legislators
realized the need to bring transparency into the asbestos claims
process.

"Abuse of the asbestos trust claims process is widespread, and
this legislation will shed much-needed daylight on how trusts are
being run and cut down on widespread fraud in trust claims and
litigation. Greed and misrepresentation of facts are rampant in
the system, and future legitimate victims of asbestos exposure are
losing out to those factors in our present system.

"This legislation was very much needed. We applaud Governor
Tomblin, Senate President Bill Cole, and Speaker Tim Armstead for
making it a priority.

When the bill was being debated by the Legislature, a statewide
group for trial lawyers called the bill unnecessary and said it
only will hurt affected residents.

West Virginia Association for Justice President Anthony Majestro
said West Virginia's current case management order for asbestos
cases is working well.

"For more than a decade, West Virginia's asbestos cases have been
handled very effectively by our case management order," said
Majestro, a Charleston attorney. "It was developed by lawyers for
both the injured workers and the manufacturers. They worked
together to establish a system that would handle these cases
fairly, efficiently and protected the interests of all parties
involved.

"More importantly, it ensures that very sick people are
compensated for their exposure to a deadly product that was kept
on the market for decades after its dangers were well known. West
Virginia's case management order is working, and it should be a
model for any state that has asbestos claims.

"Dying West Virginians will not be compensated and billion-dollar
manufacturers that kept a dangerous product on the market will not
be held accountable and get to keep their profits."

Majestro said defendants involved in the creation of the CMO have
acknowledged that "the existing CMO was an exhaustive joint effort
by the vast majority of plaintiffs and defendants to develop a
comprehensive system to address the large number of asbestos
claims in West Virginia." He also said that since its
implementation, additional changes have been made to improve
disclosure requirements regarding bankruptcy payments to clients
and that the CMO never has been appealed.

Majestro also noted that the newly signed law will eliminate
possible claims for secondary exposures for spouses and children
who were exposed to asbestos from a worker's body and clothing
even in cases of mesothelioma which is caused by inhaling asbestos
fibers.

"Abuse of the asbestos trust claims process is widespread, and
this legislation will shed much-needed daylight on how trusts are
being run and cut down on widespread fraud in trust claims and
litigation. Greed and misrepresentation of facts are rampant in
the system, and future legitimate victims of asbestos exposure are
losing out to those factors in our present system."

Stauffer said West Virginia and national personal injury attorneys
have abused the asbestos trust filing process for personal gain,
citing bogus claims filed by late radiologist Ray Harron and two
Pittsburgh asbestos attorneys. They were found guilty of fraud and
racketeering. He also mentioned recent events in North Carolina
regarding Garlock Sealing Technologies.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled in January 2014 that
Garlock would put $125 million into a trust that would pay
asbestos claimants. The figure was roughly $1 billion less than
plaintiffs attorneys had argued for.

Hodges wrote in his ruling that Garlock's history of verdicts and
settlements was an unreliable future indicator of the company's
liability because that past had been tainted by plaintiffs
attorneys who withheld their clients' evidence of exposure to
other companies' products in order to maximize recovery against
Garlock.

Garlock has filed four racketeering lawsuits against the firms
Shein Law Center of Philadelphia, Belluck & Fox of New York City,
Waters & Kraus of Dallas and Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett,
also of Dallas.

Garlock has since settled with a representative who represents
future claimants for more than $360 million.

"The Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act would
require personal injury lawyers to disclose, in litigation, when
they have filed claims with asbestos trusts or plan to do so,
which is currently not practiced," Stauffer said. "Additionally,
the legislation establishes medical criteria for asbestos claims,
which will help eliminate fraudulent trust claims and preserve
asbestos trust resources for those with legitimate claims.

"Some millionaire personal injury lawyers are not speaking the
truth when they say this legislation will 'eliminate asbestos
monetary recovery.'  This reform legislation will ensure that our
lawsuit system is used for justice, not greed. It will ensure that
asbestos trusts remain accessible to those with legitimate
asbestos claims and will be a giant step toward ending asbestos
fraud with trusts and in the courtroom."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Simmons Hanly Snags Ex-Weitz & Luxenberg Attys
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reported that mesothelioma
powerhouse Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC has lured three experienced
asbestos litigators from Weitz & Luxenberg PC, bolstering its
mesothelioma practices in the Northeast and California, it said.

Edward Braniff joined the firm's New York office as a shareholder
and as the Northeast asbestos litigation manager, the firm said.
Daniel P. Blouin also joined the New York office as a shareholder,
according to the firm, and the third attorney, Brent Zadorozny,
joined as an attorney in the El Segundo, California, office,
according to Simmons Hanly Conroy.

Braniff and Blouin will be the firm's first mesothelioma attorneys
based in New York, Simmons Hanly Conroy said.

"We welcome Ed and Daniel to our New York office, where they will
spearhead the expansion of our mesothelioma litigation practice in
the entire Northeast region," Michael J. Angelides, managing
shareholder of the firm, said in a statement. "With decades of
experience in asbestos and pharmaceutical products liability
litigation, they will add significant depth to our firm."

Simmons Hanly Conroy acquired its New York office in the June 2014
merger of Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC  and
Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP, according to
the announcement.

At Weitz & Luxenberg's New York office, Braniff had recently
focused his practice on Zoloft drug birth defects litigation and
currently serves on the plaintiffs' steering committee for the
Zoloft multidistrict litigation, according to Simmons Hanly
Conroy.

His extensive trial experience includes representing individuals
and families affected by mesothelioma and asbestos exposure and he
has also participated in pharmaceutical litigation involving
Accutane, Fosamax and Hydroxycut, among others.

Blouin focuses his practice on asbestos litigation on behalf of
people with mesothelioma and lung cancer and their families,
according to the firm.

In 2013, he obtained a $190 million verdict, the largest
consolidated asbestos verdict in New York history, as compensation
for the cancer his clients developed decades after they came into
contact with asbestos, according to the firm.

Two of the plaintiffs received $60 million, among the largest
individual sums ever awarded in a New York asbestos case, the firm
said.

Zadorozny also focuses his practice on asbestos and personal
injury cases, according to the firm.

He has won an $8.7 million asbestos trial verdict in Los Angeles
Superior Court, as well as successful arbitration of various
matters in non-U.S. jurisdictions, such as Sweden and the Bahamas,
the firm said.

"Brent will help us to bolster our services to clients throughout
California," Angelides said in a statement. "Brent has more than
25 years of experience as a trial lawyer and an extensive
background handling asbestos and mesothelioma matters, as well as
non-asbestos injury litigation."

Braniff earned his law degree from St. John's University School of
Law and his bachelor's degree from Bucknell University, the firm
said. Blouin holds a law degree from Brooklyn Law School and his
bachelor's degree from Georgetown University, and  Zadorozny
earned his law degree from Seattle University School of Law and
his undergraduate degree from Washington State University,
according to the firm.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Court Flips $14.5MM Fibro Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Wilkinson of Wilson Elser, writing for JD Supra Business
Advisor, reported that an en banc session of the Pennsylvania
Superior Court vacated a $14.5 million asbestos verdict in a
mesothelioma case and remanded the case to the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia for a new trial, affirming the decision of a
three-judge Superior Court panel in Nelson v. Airco Welders
Supply, 2014 PA Super 286. The Superior Court determined that an
expert was improperly allowed to testify on an "any-exposure"
theory of causation and that Nelson's counsel improperly suggested
amounts of damages to the jury.

Nelson introduced the expert testimony of pulmonologist Dr. Daniel
DuPont on causation during the liability portion of the trial.
According to Dr. DuPont, malignant mesothelioma "occurs with
significant asbestos exposure," which Dr. DuPont defined as the
"inhalation of fibers above the negligible amount already in the
environment." Dr. DuPont was not an expert presented on the
defendants' products and could not opine whether any such products
"actually released respirable asbestos fibers." In fact, no such
evidence was introduced by Nelson to establish such release. Yet,
the trial court allowed Dr. DuPont to testify based on an
assumption that "any visible dust released by Appellants' products
contained respirable asbestos fibers," and allowed Dr. DuPont to
testify that he concluded that "Nelson's exposure to these
products constituted a substantial, contributing factor in causing
his disease."

For the majority, Judge John Bender wrote that it was improper for
the trial court to have allowed such expert testimony due to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC,
44 A.3d 27 (PA. 2012), where the any-exposure theory of causation
in asbestos cases had been rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court. The Superior Court pointed to the following language of the
Supreme Court in Betz that the "any-exposure theory was
'fundamentally inconsistent with both science and the governing
standard for legal causation.'"

The Superior Court also found that it was improper for the trial
court to have allowed Dr. DuPont's testimony and to have denied
defendants' request (1) to preclude Dr. DuPont's testimony and (2)
for a Frye hearing. Dr. DuPont was permitted to testify that "each
individual exposure" above an unquantified "non-negligible" level
"contributed to the causation of the disease."

The Superior Court observed that there was a paradox in Dr.
DuPont's causation theory because different levels of ambient
exposure are deemed non-causative, yet Dr. Dupont opined that each
incremental exposure to an individual product is causative, no
matter how small. Judge Bender properly noted that the Supreme
Court dealt with this issue in Betz, stating "plaintiff's experts
in this case, as well as in other asbestos cases, have never been
able to explain the scientific and logical implausibility of
agreeing to the premise that a lifetime of breathing asbestos in
the ambient air will not harm a person, while on the other hand
arguing that every breath of asbestos from a defendant's product,
no matter how inconsequential, will."

The Superior Court also held that a new trial was warranted
because Nelson's counsel suggested that the jury should award a
specific dollar amount "for non-economic damages" by improperly
referring to a stipulation of the economic damages agreed to by
the parties. Following the well-settled law in Pennsylvania that
counsel may not suggest an amount for damages claimed or expected
but not supported by the evidence, the Superior Court found it
improper for Nelson's counsel to write "seven" under the Survival
Act and another "five" under the Wrongful Death Act and then refer
to the stipulated economic damages. Since no curative instruction
had been offered by the trial court, a new trial was warranted.

This decision is noteworthy as it confirmed the ruling of the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the any-exposure theory is not
allowed in Pennsylvania and clarified the requirements for expert
opinions to include a quantification of the precise exposure
and/or actual products involved in the case. The Court also
clearly defined the scope of an "improper closing argument" with
regard to noneconomic damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Oxhey Man to Pay GBP2,500 for Dumping
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Knowles, writing for Watford Observer, reported that a
resident of Three Rivers, in England, has been ordered to pay more
than GBP2,500 after dumping asbestos in South Oxhey.

Chris Bellotti, of Little Oxhey Lane, South Oxhey, was fined
GBP364 after fly tipping asbestos cement sheeting, some of which
were cracked and broken, in Markeston Green in August.  He was
also ordered to pay GBP1,916 in compensation to Three Rivers
District Council after the authority was forced to hire specialist
contractors to dispose of the asbestos waste, which had been
dumped on council land.

Mr Bellotti pleaded guilty to two offences under the Environmental
Protection Act at St Albans Magistrates Court on March 11 and was
told to pay the prosecution costs of GBP500.

Councillor Phil Brading, lead member for public services, said:
"South Oxhey is a clean and safe place to live. Dumping asbestos,
especially cracked asbestos, is very serious and we will not
hesitate to prosecute.

"I would like to commend the team at Three Rivers District Council
who acted swiftly as soon as the asbestos was reported and
arranged for its safe removal. They then investigated the offence
leading to a successful prosecution.

"Residents can report the dumping of asbestos or any kind of fly-
tipping to the council in complete confidence and we will take
action- normally within 24 hours."

Three Rivers District Council said the court gave Mr Bellotti full
credit for pleading guilty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Limit on Wrongful Death Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf, writing for Law360, reported that the Pennsylvania
Superior Court ruled that a two-year statute of limitations
applies to asbestos-related wrongful death claims and is initiated
upon knowledge of an asbestos-related injury, rejecting a
plaintiff's contention that the law is ambiguous and she should be
allowed to sue General Electric Co. on a decedent's behalf.

The appellate court's decision affirms a lower court ruling that
Elizabeth Wygant's wrongful death suit against GE, Hunter Sales
Corp. and Reading Crane & Engineering Co. on behalf of Margaret H.
Klan was time-barred by a statute that had been deleted but
reenacted when the statute that replaced it was struck down in a
2013 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case.

Wygant had argued that when the state's high court struck down Act
152 and its statute of limitations on asbestos claims in
Commonwealth v. Neiman, the time restraint should have been
reverted to two years after someone's death instead of two years
after knowledge of an asbestos-related injury, as dictated by a
clause in SB 121, which was the law that had been invalidated by
Act 152.

The panel disagreed and said that because the high court case
struck down Act 152, it also deleted any consequences of that act,
which makes SB 121 reenacted. And with its reenactment, Wygant's
wrongful death claims, which were filed within two years of Klan's
death but more than two years after she was diagnosed, are time-
barred.

"The statute of limitations on administratrix's wrongful death
action started to run on June 17, 2011, the date when decedent was
informed by a physician that she had mesothelioma," the panel
wrote. "Administratrix was free to pursue both wrongful death and
survival actions. However, any wrongful death action had to be
commenced after decedent's July 9, 2012, death and prior to June
17, 2013, two years from the date decedent received her
diagnosis."

Wygant also claimed that even if the 2001 language was reenacted,
the statute is ambiguous and it shouldn't apply to those filing
wrongful death claims because such an interpretation may result in
wrongful death actions being time-barred before they can be
instituted.

The panel rejected this claim, saying the legislature clearly
intended the language in SB 121 to initiate a statute of
limitations on all asbestos-related claims, including wrongful
death, either when the afflicted person was formally diagnosed
with asbestos-related disease, or, with reasonable diligence,
should have been diagnosed.

The appeals court, however, said that some of Wygant's contentions
have merit, but it is not the responsibility of the court to make
or change laws and statutes.

"Some of the consequences of applying [the SB 121 statute of
limitations] to wrongful death actions may seem harsh," the court
said. "Admittedly, some asbestos-related wrongful death actions
may be time-barred before they can be instituted. ... Nonetheless,
it is the prerogative of the legislature to set the limitations on
actions."

A spokesman for GE declined to comment and an attorney for Wygant
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wygant is represented by John R. Kane of Savinis D'Amico & Kane
LLC.

GE is represented by Bryan S. Neft of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano
Bosick & Raspanti LLP and Bruce P. Merenstein of Schnader Harrison
Segal & Lewis LLP.

Hunter Sales is represented by Andrew F. Adomitis Grogan Graffam
PC.

Reading Crane & Engineering is represented by Dara A. DeCourcy and
Christian W. Wrabley of Zimmer Kunz PLLC.

The case is Elizabeth Wygant v. General Electric Co. et al., case
number 470 WDA 2014, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boeing Wins Fibro Case Due to Missed Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Harding, writing for Law360, reported that a Pennsylvania
federal judge has tossed the remaining claims against The Boeing
Co. in a former employee's asbestos exposure case, saying he did
so because the plaintiff filed a document four days late with no
explanation.

In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno granted
Boeing's request for summary judgment in the case accusing the
company of negligence by failing to warn a former employee about
asbestos exposure. In a footnote, Judge Robreno wrote that
plaintiff Marilyn Gillen filed her reply to Boeing's motion for
summary judgment on March 16, four days after it was due. The
judge said Gillen did not "even appear to acknowledge that her
response was untimely."

"In a multidistrict litigation setting, in which the court is
managing a docket of thousands of cases, the failure to adhere
strictly to court-ordered deadlines impacts upon the efficient
administration of the litigation," the judge wrote.

Judge Robreno in August dismissed Gillen's claim for take-home
exposure to asbestos, ruling that she didn't prove Boeing knew or
should have known that her husband, whom Boeing employed as a
machinist for some 35 years, was likely bringing asbestos fibers
home with him on his work clothes.

Gillen sued Boeing in 2013 to hold the company liable after she
was diagnosed with mesothelioma. While her husband worked as a
Boeing machinist from 1966 to 1970 and then again from 1973 to
2005, she worked as a secretary at a Boeing facility in Ridley
Park, Pennsylvania, from 1966 to 2005.

Gillen alleged she was exposed to the cancer-causing fibers as
Boeing conducted several asbestos remediation projects at the
facility over the years, and that she was exposed to additional
quantities of asbestos when she laundered her husband's work
clothes at home.

Boeing filed its motion for summary judgment on the remaining
claims in February, arguing there was insufficient evidence to
show Gillen was ever exposed to asbestos while she worked at the
Ridley Park facility.

"Even if this court were to find that plaintiff did come into
contact with respirable asbestos for which Boeing is responsible
-- and it should not -- plaintiff has not -- and cannot -- satisfy
her burden of establishing that such exposure was a substantial
factor in causing her mesothelioma," Boeing's motion for summary
judgment said.

In the tardy reply, Gillen said her remaining claims are not
limited to her own workplace exposure and argued Boeing owed her,
as an employee, a warning to avoid the clothes of manufacturing
co-workers.

The reply argues that any employee who would interact with other
employees exposed to asbestos was owed a warning.

"She traveled with her co-workers while they were covered in
asbestos-laden dust. She washed those clothes," Gillen's reply to
the summary judgment motion said. "A simple warning by Boeing
regarding the risks inherent in breathing in the dust that was on
the manufacturing employees' clothes would have served to protect
Mrs. Gillen from exposure that began on-site at Boeing, and ended
at home."

An attorney for Gillen and representatives of Boeing did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

Gillen is represented by Ryan Anderson of Locks Law Firm.

Boeing is represented by Joseph Cagnoli Jr. and Nicola F. Serianni
of Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd.

The case is Gillen v. The Boeing Company et al., case number 2:13-
cv-03118, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suit vs. Carnival Corp. Considered a First
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
there have been numerous asbestosis compensation lawsuits from
plaintiffs stricken with asbestosis disease following a lifetime
of work in the shipyards, either building or maintaining ships. So
it should come as no surprise that the hugely popular cruise ship
industry is not immune to such claims.

To that end, an asbestosis lawsuit recently concluded favorably
for the Estate of a deceased crewmember in a case against Carnival
Cruise Lines in Miami. Sadly, the plaintiff did not survive his
asbestosis disease. However, his family and heirs were compensated
with a reduced award of $3.6 million.

The trial set a precedent, as it is believed to be the first
asbestosis case against the pleasure cruise ship industry to go to
trial.

Carnival is one of the most popular cruise lines, constantly
adding to its fleet as cruises continue to grow as a popular
vacation choice. Unseen, however, by the throng of passengers
enjoying the sun, fun and various activities associated with the
Carnival line, are the scores of workers tasked with the job of
running the ship. Some of those workers work deep in the bowels of
the vessel.

The plaintiff in the asbestosis claim was a shipboard electrician
of Italian descent who toiled onboard several steamships in the
Carnival fleet from 1985 through 2000. In 2001, the plaintiff was
diagnosed with asbestosis disease, allegedly as a result of
prolonged exposure to asbestos.

According to court documents, the man toiled aboard four different
Carnival Cruise liners over a 15-year period. The focus of the
plaintiff's employment was the engine rooms and machine spaces.
During trial, it was revealed by a former chief engineer with the
Carnival line that asbestos was, indeed, present in the engine
rooms and other operational areas where the plaintiff worked. It
was also revealed that an occupational physician and a pathologist
ruled that the plaintiff's asbestosis disease was caused by
asbestos exposure.

The asbestos lawsuit resulted in a nine-day trial. Following
deliberation for about three-and-one-half hours, the jury found in
favor of the plaintiff and initially awarded the plaintiff's
Estate $10.3 million. However, the jury also deemed the plaintiff
to be 65 percent responsible for his demise given that he smoked
for a period of 20 years prior to his death. Thus, the award was
reduced by 65 percent to $3.6 million.

The case was Caraffa v. Carnival Corporation, Case No. 06-00964 CA
42 in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trader Given Suspended Jail Sentence Over Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health and Safety Executive reported that a trader from Leeds,
England, has been given a suspended jail sentence after exposing a
household and workers to potentially dangerous levels of asbestos
fibres at a home in Bramhope.

Clive Raper, 49, trading as Bramley Asbestos Removals, took on a
job to remove asbestos insulating board from the garage of a
couple's home despite the fact that he did not hold the legal
licence required to carry out the specialist work.  He hired a
couple of workers to help him but totally failed to take any of
the vital safety measures needed, or implement the tight controls
imposed by law, to protect workers, local people and the
environment when working with the material.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Mr Raper for
safety breaches at Leeds Magistrates' Court (20 March) after
investigating the incident in July 2011.

The court was told Mr Raper accepted the job from the couple
knowing full well he did not have the necessary licence to do the
work. He then took on a couple of labourers to help him, neither
of whom held licences.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and asbestos-containing materials
will release fibres into the air when damaged or disturbed. If
inhaled, they can lead to serious and fatal disease, often years
down the line.

Mr Raper had not used any of the standard control measures that
licensed operators employ, such as a protective enclosure, full-
face respiratory equipment, negative pressure units and specialist
vacuums.

The poor standards employed by Mr Raper meant that asbestos debris
and residue was left, compounding the risk to the homeowners of
exposure.

The homeowner was so concerned with how Mr Raper had left the
garage he contacted Leeds City Council. They identified a suitable
contractor who went to the home and carried out an environmental
clean of the property, at added cost to the homeowner. The council
also reported the matter to HSE

Clive Raper, trading as Bramley Asbestos Removals, of Fawcett
Gardens, Leeds (previously Summerfield Drive, Bramley), was
sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months, and
ordered to pay a contribution of œ260 toward costs after admitting
a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and a
separate breach of the Control of Asbestos Regulations.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Paul Yeadon said:

"It is appalling that a trader who is fully familiar with the
restrictions governing asbestos wilfully ignores them and puts a
household and the workers he has hired in danger. It would appear
that he has put profit ahead of the health and wellbeing of
others, and in this case quite bafflingly, he put his own health
at risk as well.

"We were unable to identify the two workers involved as Mr Raper
could not provide their full names or contact details. We do
think, however, that they were probably both exposed to asbestos
fibres above the action level.

"This kind of work must be carried out by competent people with
the necessary licence to do so."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Belluck & Fox Wins $4MM Verdict for Plant Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A plant worker who developed both mesothelioma and lung cancer
after being exposed to asbestos products has won a $4 million
verdict against the company who supplied those products, the
nationally recognized New York law firm of Belluck & Fox, LLP,
announced on March 23.

After a trial before the Honorable Charles C. Merrell, the jury
returned its verdict on March 18 in the Supreme Court of New York,
County of Oneida, in the case of Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J.
Dominick v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al. (No. CA2014-000232).
The jury awarded the Dominick family $1 million for past pain and
suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering, assessing
30% of the fault to Pacemaker.

"Mr. Dominick has suffered tremendous pain as a result of
Pacemaker/Charles Millar's negligence. His sickness could have,
and should have been prevented. I'm grateful that the jury was
able to deliver justice for him and his wonderful family," said
Brittany Russell, an associate attorney at Belluck & Fox who tried
the case along with partner Bryan Belasky on behalf of the
Dominick family.

Partners Joe Belluck and Seth Dymond provided assistance to the
trial team. "Our law firm, Belluck and Fox, is dedicated to
representing mesothelioma victims across New York State. We are
honored that the Dominick family allowed us to represent them and
proud that we obtained the largest verdict ever in an asbestos
case in Oneida County. Once again, this shows that the jury system
in New York works," Belluck said.

According to court documents, between 1968 and 1973, Mr. Dominick
worked as an internal grinder at the Chicago Pneumatic tool
manufacturing plant in Utica, New York. The jury determined that
Mr. Dominick developed pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer as a
result of his exposure to bags of asbestos and asbestos boards
supplied by Pacemaker/Charles Millar to Chicago Pneumatic, which
were used in the plant's annealing process. The jury found that
Pacemaker/Charles Millar was negligent in failing to warn Mr.
Dominick about the dangers of asbestos associated with the
products it supplied. The case is significant in New York asbestos
litigation, as it is the largest verdict ever levied against a
distributor of asbestos products, and the largest asbestos verdict
of any nature obtained in Oneida County.

Asbestos is a mineral that has been linked to lung cancer and
mesothelioma, an aggressive and deadly form of cancer which
results from breathing in asbestos fibers that become lodged in
the thin membrane that lines and encases the lungs.

At trial, lawyers from Belluck & Fox presented evidence from a
series of experts regarding the use of asbestos in heat treatment
annealing processes, the causation of Mr. Dominick's mesothelioma
and lung cancer, the state-of-the-art evidence relating to the
dangers of asbestos, and testimony about the cancers' impact on
Mr. Dominick. Testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs were experts
Dr. Jacqueline Moline, Dr. David Rosner, and Dr. Uriel Oko.
Defendant Pacemaker/Charles Millar was represented by Robert
Cahalan of Smith, Sovik, Kendrick & Sugnet, P.C, and called expert
Dr. Frederick Schmidt to testify on its behalf.

                       About Belluck & Fox

Belluck & Fox, LLP, is a nationally recognized law firm that
represents individuals with asbestos and mesothelioma claims, as
well as victims of crime, motorcycle crashes, lead paint and other
serious injuries. The firm provides personalized and professional
representation and has won over $650 million in compensation for
clients and their families. The firm has been named one of the top
law firms in America by U.S. News & World Report every year since
2011.

Partner Joseph W. Belluck is AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and is
listed in Best Lawyers in America, New York Magazine's "Best
Lawyers in the New York Area" and in Super Lawyers. Mr. Belluck
has won numerous cases involving injuries from asbestos, defective
medical products, tobacco and lead paint, including a recent
asbestos case that settled for more than $12 million.

Partner Jordan Fox is an award-winning, nationally-recognized
asbestos attorney. In 2013 he was named "Lawyer of the Year" for
the New York Metro area by Best Lawyers in America after securing
$32 million and $19.5 million verdicts in two separate asbestos
cases. He is regularly listed in the annual Best Lawyers in
America list and has also appeared in Super Lawyers. A number of
his verdicts have been featured among the National Law Journal's
Largest Verdicts of the Year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Athlone Fibro Victim Gets Money for Lung Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Lewis, writing for AllAfrica.com, reported that Cassiem
Mohammed, who worked for 40 years at the Athlone Power Station, in
South Africa, has finally been paid compensation for the lung
disease he developed from contact with deadly asbestos fibres at
work.

Mohammed's work involved scraping, cleaning and repairing
deteriorating boiler and piping insulation (lagging) made from
asbestos fibre.  He started work at the power station in 1967 and
retired in 2007 at the age of 65, five years after the station
stopped generating electricity on a continuous basis. But
maintenance of insulation at the moth-balled plant continued right
up to his retirement and continues to this day, though on a much
reduced basis, with a smaller team.

Mohammed, who takes care of two grandchildren of 11 and 15 on his
retirement pension of R5,000 per month, suffers from asbestosis
due to his work at the station. His wife died in 2011.

When he began work at the power station, he and his fellow lagging
workers just used mutton cloth around their mouths, and eye
goggles as protection against the asbestos dust. In the 1990's,
when it became obvious that workers were getting sick from
asbestos exposure, and the South African Municipal Workers' Union
(SAMWU) took up the issue, the power station management and the
City of Cape Town started a regular medical examination program
for insulation workers and instituted better exposure control and
personal protection for lagging maintenance work.

Thanks to to this programme, Mohammed was diagnosed in the mid-
1990s with asbestosis, a progressive lung disease caused only by
asbestos fibres, for which there is no cure, only palliative
medicine. The main symptom is shortness of breath, which gets
worse over time. It can also cause other health complications
because of the strain imposed on the body from breathing with
scarred lungs with reduced capacity. Eventually, a victim becomes
incapable of the smallest exertion, and death follows, often as a
result of the various complications.

According to the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases Act 1993, a claim must be lodged by the City on behalf of
the employee within one year of diagnosis of the disease, at the
Compensation Commissioner's Office in Pretoria, a branch of the
Department of Labour which administers the Act. The City
authorities, as the employer, have their own insurance against
liabilities for payments to sick workers under the Act, so they
are exempted from paying insurance premiums on behalf of workers
to the COIDA Compensation Fund, and do not rely on it for payouts
to sick workers. But they do rely on the Compensation Authority's
medical panels for verification of diagnosis and to establish how
badly disabled the sick worker is and whether the disability is
permanent.

In January 2014, nearly 20 years after his diagnosis, Mr.Mohamed
had still not been compensated.

But when Groundup contacted Mohammed this week, there was good
news. He was compensated in September 2014 by the City, his ex-
employers, with a lump sum payment of R665, 000, and said he was
"satisfied" with this payment, though as far as he knew, there was
no payment for expensive medicines he has had to buy since his
retirement.  He has settled the payout largely on his 6 children,
who are adults with children of their own.

Mohammed also went on pilgrimage to the Middle East, but had to
come back when he fell sick -- he is frail as a result of his
asbestosis, he says -- and was hospitalised for a time.

But he continues to take his grandchildren to school and care for
them. He tends his wife's grave every week, and says "no-one knows
when he will die, only God, but I will join her one of these
days".


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Durham Council Agrees Pay-Out for Fibro Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tallentire, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that the
council in Durham, England, says it is managing and monitoring
asbestos in its schools, after it agreed to pay compensation for
the death of a cleaner following exposure to the deadly fibres.

Durham County Council says it is meeting its legal
responsibilities on the now-banned material, which was in common
use until the 1970s, despite having admitted liability and agreed
to pay out to Alan Hamilton over the death of his wife Laura from
the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma in June 2011.

Mrs Hamilton worked as a cleaner at Belmont Comprehensive School,
Durham, in the mid-1980s, when industrial illness lawyer Philip
Thompson, who represents her husband, says not only was there
asbestos present, but large amounts of brown asbestos was damaged
and therefore likely to give off deadly loose fibres.

The out-of-court settlement, of an undisclosed sum, was reached
following a three-year legal battle.

Mr Thompson, of Thomson and Co Solicitors, said: "We are delighted
to have settled this claim.

"Our client has been determined to prove the extent of asbestos
exposure that took place at the school at the time and we had
extensive evidence to prove that exposure had taken place.

"Nothing will ever bring back Mrs Hamilton, but this decision will
give Mr Hamilton some degree of closure."

Sean Durran, the council's senior asbestos officer, said: "We have
a comprehensive asbestos management policy and system in place for
all council premises, including schools.

"This ensures that asbestos containing materials are managed and
monitored in accordance with legal responsibilities."

Asbestos was commonly used in fireproofing and thermal insulation
during the 1960s and 1970s and only banned in the UK in 1999.

Recent reports suggest it is still present in nearly 86 per cent
of UK schools.

The Health and Safety Executive says it is "endemic"; and removing
it all would cost billions and take decades.

Undisturbed, it can be managed safely; but pressure is growing for
the Government to do more.

Mesothelioma claims 2,500 lives in the UK every year -- more than
the country's roads -- with 300 of those deaths attributed to
schools.

Nearly 300 teachers have died of mesothelioma since 1980,
including 158 in the last decade, and the rate is increasing --
from three in 1980 to 19 in 2012.

The Government is producing new guidelines on managing asbestos in
schools and continuing to fund its removal "where appropriate".

Mr Thompson said: "We are reaching the stage where instances of
people who have worked in schools, or who have attended schools as
pupils, are contracting asbestos related illnesses with increasing
frequency, and the Government is rightly under increasing pressure
to address the matter."

He added: "While cases of this kind will never be as widespread as
those we saw from shipyards in the region, they are certainly
growing more frequent -- and people will want reassurance that
there is no ongoing danger from asbestos in schools."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AIG Unit Denied Quick Win in Reinsurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that a New York
appellate court affirmed a lower court's refusal to rule that
Clearwater Insurance Co. must pay an American International Group
unit under a reinsurance agreement to help cover payments to
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Co. for asbestos exposure claims,
saying triable factual issues still remain in the dispute.

In a lengthy ruling, a four-judge panel of the Appellate
Division's First Department upheld Judge Ellen M. Coin's decision
denying New Hampshire Insurance Co.'s motion for summary judgment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boston Worker Dies from Fibro-Related Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Target reported that the family of a former worker from
Boston, England, who died from incurable asbestos-related cancer
are looking for ex-colleagues of their loved one.  It is believed
that Paul Kingsnorth, who died aged 66, may have come into contact
with asbestos while working at meat processing plant Frans
Buitelaar on Marsh Lane in Boston where he cut and prepared meat
between 1987 and 1990.

The company is now owned by Holbeck Holdings and is based in
Carlisle. The Marsh Lane site has since closed.

Mr Kingsnorth passed away four weeks after his shocking diagnosis
of mesothelioma, an extremely aggressive cancer which affects the
lining of the lungs.

At the inquest in to his death at the East Somerset Coroners
Court, Senior Coroner Tony Williams concluded that Paul had died
as a result of industrial disease.

Helen Grady, an expert asbestos disease solicitor at Novum Law,
specialising in mesothelioma cases, said: "This is a difficult
case because Paul was not directly working with asbestos himself.
All his working life, he was employed in factories and butcher
shops where it is likely there was asbestos lagged pipes and
asbestos in the roofs. It is also possible that some of these
factories would have contained a boiler house where the boilers
were often lagged with asbestos as well as the pipework.

"Paul's case highlights the dangers of asbestos and how important
it is that wherever it is located, it should be properly
encapsulated and if possible, safely removed. There is growing
awareness of the dangers of asbestos and charities such as the
British Lung Foundation have made an enormous difference educating
tradesmen and workers on how deadly asbestos dust can be, but
sadly for Paul and his family, it is too late."

The plea is made to anybody who worked around the factory,
including: maintenance workers, fellow butchers, cleaners, office
staff, inspectors and it is also hoped someone may even recall
working with Paul Kingsnorth there.

Paul's son, Russell Kingsnorth, said: "After leaving school aged
15, Dad trained as a butcher working in numerous butcher shops
around the London area and for various meat preparation factories.

"In 1987 Dad started work at Frans Buitelaar Ltd in Boston and we
think it likely there was asbestos around the factory,
particularly around pipework and in the boiler house."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lansing Fined $21,500 for Safety Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Parker, writing for Lansing State Journal, reported that the
state of Michigan has levied another $21,500 in fines against East
Lansing for failing to correct safety problems related to
asbestos, mercury and other hazardous materials at the city's
wastewater treatment plant.

The fines were handed down March 12 by the Michigan Occupational
Health and Safety Administration, according to records obtained
through the Freedom of Information Act. The city has until March
30 to either pay the fines or contest them.

The fines come less than a year after MIOSHA fined the city
$11,000 for safety violations related to asbestos at the 1700
Trowbridge Road plant. Those fines were later reduced to $4,400,
according to state officials.

City officials said they believe not all the fines may be new, and
contend most of the fines will be reduced or canceled.

East Lansing City Manager George Lahanas said the workplace safety
violations have been dealt with, and that the city is actively
working with MIOSHA.

"We have not completely resolved whether all the fines relate to
newer violations or whether they reference past actions we've
already corrected," Lahanas said. "We have a number of areas where
we have questions and we have to clarify with MIOSHA. That is in
progress."

MIOSHA officials could not be reached to clarify whether errors
were made in the fines.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: States Bypass Congress on Bankruptcy Overhaul
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reported that West Virginia
has become the fourth state to enact legislation aimed at helping
bankrupt asbestos manufacturers obtain mitigating evidence from
personal injury claimants, signaling a growing eagerness in
statehouses to embrace transparency reform measures snubbed by
Congress.

While a push to ramp up disclosure obligations on asbestos
claimants nationwide has languished amid opposition from
congressional Democrats, West Virginia took it upon itself to
throw up new requirements for asbestos victims to assert exposure
claims. Senate Bill 411, signed by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, forces
injury claimants to divulge what claims they have asserted and
against whom before they can receive payments from the massive
trusts left behind to deal with legacy tort liabilities of
insolvent asbestos manufacturers.

For years, the asbestos compensation trusts established under
Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code have come under fire by
critics who say that opportunistic plaintiffs' lawyers can inflate
recoveries by hiding the fact that they have filed multiple or
overlapping claims against the trusts and in state court.

"There's no check on that, so what the states have decided they
can do is deal with the underlying litigation," said T. Michael
Brown of Bradley Arant Boult & Cummings LLP.

Overhaul proponents say that imposing mandatory disclosure
requirements would preserve the resources of the nation's roughly
60 asbestos trusts, which hand out around $2.5 billion in payments
annually, according to a study from A.M. Best Co. Under S.B. 411,
plaintiffs must disclose all of their claims against asbestos
trusts and any related documents, including those related to
settlements, plus any potential claims they reasonably anticipate
they will file in the future.

Given the high cost of obtaining such information through
discovery, defendants often choose to settle rather than hire
lawyers to sniff out potentially mitigating circumstances, such as
a previous claim that asserted exposure from different asbestos
products.

"The movement is toward requiring discovery of that information,"
Curt Cutting of Horvitz & Levy LLP said. "I don't see any reason
why a state could not enact this kind of legislation, either
through court procedures or within legislation, because it seems
to be fully within the power of each state to manage its own tort
litigation."

Whether plaintiffs must make those disclosures is currently part
of the negotiating process for crafting reorganization plans for
companies driven into bankruptcy by injury lawsuits, according to
Debbie Dandeneau of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP. Existing law
requires support from three-quarters of a debtor's asbestos
claimants before the establishment of a 524(g) trust and a so-
called channeling injunction to funnel claims to the trust for
resolution.

Disclosure laws in Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma and now West Virginia
take some of the cost of discovery out of the equation and tilt
the settlement dynamic in favor of defendants.

"In the bankruptcy context, we always went into those cases
knowing that regardless of the strategy that you employed, if you
wanted to get protection in the form of a 524(g) injunction
against future claims, at the end of the day it was going to be a
negotiated resolution," Dandeneau said.

Allegations of fraudulent claims and "double dipping" -- where
asbestos victims recover twice from the same injury, through both
tort litigation and through the trust process -- are nothing new
to the asbestos community, but the issue took on renewed
importance last year when the judge presiding over Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC's bankruptcy found evidence that the gasket
maker's past settlements were wildly inflated by claimant
misconduct.

As a result, the judge capped Garlock's estimated asbestos
liability at $125 million, about a tenth of what its claimants
were seeking. Heralded by the defense bar as aroad map for
reducing asbestos liability pools, the tactics used by Garlock may
pack less of a punch as more claimant information becomes subject
to mandatory disclosure laws.

"As we move toward more transparency, I'm not sure how effective
that argument is going to be," Dandeneau said.

Garlock later reached a $358 million agreement to resolve certain
asbestos liabilities that, if approved, could pave the way for
future bankrupt defendants to win dramatically lower asbestos
trust valuations. Plaintiffs lawyers, meanwhile, are aghast at
state transparency laws, which they cast as a cynical attempt to
gum up the claims resolution process and strengthen the hand of
defendants.

Among the information subject to disclosure in West Virginia is
the dollar amount of past settlements or trust claims, otherwise-
confidential information that can be used against plaintiffs.

"It's one thing to say that someone filed a claim with a bankrupt
trust, but it's another thing to say that they filed, it got
approved and paid this much," said Mike Angelides ofSimmons Hanly
Conroy LLC, a leading asbestos firm. "If this was a true
transparency piece of legislation, it would require both sides to
disclose things. It would require the asbestos companies to
disclose their own settlements, which, by the way, they won't."

Still, Republican lawmakers have been receptive to changing the
claims process. The Republican-controlled U.S. House of
Representatives in 2013 passed the Furthering Asbestos Claims
Transparency Act, which is designed to crack down on abusive
behavior by forcing 524(g) trusts to divulge details on claimants.
With the U.S. Senate in Democratic hands at the time, it was a
largely symbolic vote. But leaders of the new GOP-controlled
Senate could choose in 2015 to take up a companion bill floated by
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., in May.

While states seem to be taking up the cause, legislating asbestos
reform at the state level runs the risk of creating a patchwork of
legal regimes and pushing lawsuits into more plaintiff-friendly
jurisdictions. Moreover, imposing obligations on trusts adds an
extra layer of costs, Dandeneau said, which can eat into money
potentially available for claimants.

"We're putting the trusts back in the tort system, almost, as
participants in the discovery process," she said. "If trusts have
to be responsible for individual discovery requests made in each
and every lawsuit that's been filed, that's an extra
administrative burden that doesn't really help anyone."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Case Exposes Fibro Blame Game
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reported that in a quiet
bankruptcy court in Charlotte, N.C., closed to all but court
personnel and people who'd signed strict confidentiality orders,
attorney Garland Cassada laid out the inner workings of one of the
longest-running and most lucrative schemes in the American
litigation business.

Arguing for a manufacturer of asbestos gaskets named Garlock
Sealing Technologies, Cassada explained how lawyers had tailored
the testimony of their clients to minimize their exposure to more
dangerous products, thus making Garlock seem more liable than it
really was.

Cassada's evidence for this scheme came from the mouths of the
asbestos lawyers themselves. In an unprecedented move Garlock had
persuaded U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges to allow it to dig
into case files and question the lawyers who'd helped drive the
company into bankruptcy.

That led to revealing disclosures like that of Benjamin Shein, a
prominent Philadelphia asbestos attorney whose firm had settled
the case of a former shipyard worker named Vincent Golini against
then-solvent Garlock in 2009.

Golini was dying of the excruciating, asbestos-linked cancer known
as mesothelioma when he sued Garlock and testified that he
couldn't recall working with other, more common and more hazardous
products like Owens Corning's Kaylo pipe insulation or EaglePicher
asbestos cement. As soon as he settled, however, Golini's lawyers
filed claims against those precise companies based on affidavits
they'd drawn up before Golini professed ignorance of their
products.

"Our goal is to maximize a client's recovery, okay, and in order
to do that, what we focus on for the deposition is the viable,
nonbankrupt companies," said Shein in his own deposition. "That's
our job, okay?"

And had the asbestos lawyers prevailed, Shein's efforts and
Golini's multiple filings would have remained secret. But thanks
to Garlock's persistence (and a successful lawsuit by Legal
Newsline, a U.S. Chamber-funded publication seeking release of
sealed court documents) the evidence has come spilling out. That
evidence could be the biggest turning point in the decades-long
multibillion-dollar battle over who will pay for asbestos cleanup
across the U.S. Garlock is suing Shein and lawyers at five other
firms for racketeering and fraud over their asbestos litigation.
Shein's lawyer, Daniel Brier, says that "Ben Shein is a zealous
advocate for his clients" and the lawsuit has no merit.

"More justice was done in the Garlock bankruptcy than in all the
previous bankruptcies put together," saysLester Brickman, a
professor at Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law and a paid
expert for Garlock, whose research revealed how asbestos lawyers
were gaming the system. "There's rampant fraud in every one of
those cases."

It wasn't supposed to turn out this way. Garlock had been a bit
player in the asbestos saga throughout the 1980s and 1990s,
settling mesothelioma cases for a few thousand dollars apiece, but
by the early 2000s bigger asbestos manufacturers like Johns
Manville and Owens Corning had all gone through bankruptcy and
were immune from further asbestos lawsuits, so the lawyers turned
their attention to Garlock. Settlement demands escalated as
lawyers won some big victories, including a $37 million jury
verdict in California. Soon Garlock's total payout exceeded $1
billion, four times its annual revenue.

Normally, a company in this situation strikes a deal with the
plaintiff lawyers to set up a bankruptcy trust to settle the
current litigation and pay claims into the future. But Garlock
wasn't willing to go along.

Stephen Macadam, the 54-year-old chief executive of Garlock's
Charlotte, N.C. parent company, EnPro Industries, was skeptical
about the company's liability in the first place. Macadam had
started his career as a DuPont engineer working beside pipe
fitters and millwrights. He knew it often took all day to break
down a single valve and replace the gasket, supporting the
testimony of Garlock's medical experts that it would be nearly
impossible to get a lethal dose of asbestos from its gaskets.

"We were attracting the claims of every person diagnosed with
mesothelioma, and they all said they got it from a Garlock
gasket," says Macadam, who joined EnPro in 2008. "It was just
ridiculous."

Garlock's problem was the people suing it couldn't seem to
remember working with anybody else's products, especially the
potentially deadly insulation pipe fitters had to cut through to
get to a Garlock gasket. In depositions, dying cancer patients
would answer no to repeated questions about whether they'd worked
with common construction materials like pipe insulation or
asbestos-containing joint compound. In one case a former Navy
worker claimed others removed valves from ships, cleaned off all
the insulation and brought them to him to disassemble onshore,
conveniently eliminating the possibility of being exposed to
anything but a Garlock gasket.

Garlock's average mesothelioma settlement payment rose past
$70,000 in the mid-2000s from less than $10,000 in 1999, while the
cost of defending itself at trial sometimes exceeded $400,000.
Macadam put Garlock in bankruptcy in June 2010. Once there he gave
Cassada permission to pursue a highly unconventional strategy of
proving that the claims against Garlock had been inflated by
fraud. After a lengthy battle with the asbestos lawyers who tried
to keep them secret, the company obtained millions of claims filed
with more than 20 bankruptcy trusts.

Finally, Judge Hodges allowed full discovery into 15 high-value
claims Garlock had settled, including depositions of the lawyers
involved. Hodges found plaintiffs had hidden their exposure to
other products until they settled with Garlock, only to file
additional bankruptcy trust claims that often contradicted their
previous testimony, sometimes literally the day after settling.
Citing settlements that had been "infected by the manipulation of
exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers," Hodges last
year slashed Garlock's bankruptcy liability from the $1.3 billion
plaintiff lawyers were seeking to $125 million.

The asbestos lawyers insist that prior to declaring bankruptcy,
Garlock made a business decision to settle cases rather than
challenge them in court, implying it didn't delve deeply into the
evidence that might exonerate it.

Garlock is still in bankruptcy, but Macadam's refusal to play by
the asbestos bar's rules may yield huge dividends for other firms
like Honeywell, Ford and Volkswagen that are still solvent and
facing tens of thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits. They've
filed briefs in Hodges' court seeking the millions of documents
Garlock uncovered. Congress, meanwhile, is considering a law that
would require the asbestos bankruptcy trusts to open their
records.

"If you're a solvent defendant still in the tort system, you're
scared to death of these guys, and we were, too, until we entered
reorganization," Macadam says. "All they have to do is make up
their mind to go after you, and they can make you hurt. And make
you pay."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firms Call for Stay on Fibro Cases
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Ross, writing for New York Daily News, reported that
Sheldon Silver's indictment and the sweeping federal investigation
that snared him has inspired a group of 45 law firms to ask that
all asbestos litigation in Manhattan Supreme Court be frozen for
60 days.

In a 14-page letter to Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Peter
Moulton, the new administrative judge, lawyers said the court's
rules for handling asbestos cases have become unfair and favor big
plaintiff firms like Weitz & Luxenberg.

Silver, the former state Assembly speaker, was indicted on
corruption charges, which were based in part on legal fees that he
earned while working on asbestos cases with Weitz & Luxenberg.

Weitz & Luxenberg dominates a whole section of Manhattan Supreme
Court that is devoted to asbestos cases. It has won 87% of the
$313 million in mesothelioma verdicts in the last four years.

In the letter to Moulton, former Justice Leo Milonas argues that
one reason Weitz & Luxenberg has done so well is that the court
has a set of case management rules which are not "fair" or
"balanced."

The lawyers said the judges have allowed plaintiff firms like
Weitz and Luxenberg to "cherry pick" which cases will be heard
first and this has resulted in a disproportionate number of strong
cases being resolved faster with big verdicts.

Then the plaintiff firms "fail to prosecute the remaining cases,"
the defense lawyers claim.

The asbestos lawyers also object to the way court administrators
have allowed cases that "have virtually nothing in common" to be
consolidated for a trial. They said this forces their clients to
pay out in settlements rather than face "a jackpot verdict."

The lawyers fault a legal decision by Moulton's predecessor,
Sherry Klein Heitler, who lifted a 20-year ban on punitive damages
in asbestos cases.

"The motivation for the request was transparent," they said.
"Perry Weitz of the Weitz & Luxenberg firm explicitly stated that
he intends to use the threat of punitive damages to force
settlements out of 'recalcitrant defendants and insurers'" because
they face "even more astronomical verdicts" if they go to trial.

In addition to the letter to Moulton, the defense lawyers filed a
formal motion asking for a 60-day freeze on all pending asbestos
cases -- except in cases where the plaintiffs are critically ill
and their cases or depositions need to move forward before they
die.

In a statement, Weitz said the defense lawyers' requests for a
stay and an overhaul of the court rules "is a cynical ploy aimed
at keeping victims of corporate abuses from having their day in
court."

"These defense firms can't win on the merits so they are trying to
overturn decisions reached by extraordinarily talented judges over
the last several decades," he said.

Weitz & Luxenberg sent a letter to Moulton on behalf of a dozen
plaintiff law firms opposed to the proposed stay and rule changes.
They accuse the defense firms of trying to take advantage of a
change in supervising judges to futher delay the resolution of
asbestos cases.

"The victims of the reckless marketing of ultrahazardous asbestos-
containing products without any warnings whatsover are dying and
in need of seeing their day in court," the letter says.

David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the Office of Court
Administration, said Moulton was already "assessing what if
anything needs to be done" to change the way asbestos cases are
handled and the defense lawyers' motion will focus his attention
on the case management rules.

A hearing on that issue will be scheduled for later this spring.

Meanwhile, Bookstaver said Moulton will continue Heitler's
tradition of having an open town hall forum.

The next one was set for April 9 at 10 a.m. at 60 Centre St.

Bookstaver again denied published reports that the federal
investigation, which snared Silver, has spread to the courthouse
where several judges close to him handle the kind of cases cited
in Silver's indictment.

"We know of no ongoing investigation involving anyone at 60 Centre
St. We have not had any subpoenas," he said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Steelworkers Filing Fibro Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Robin Turner, writing for Wales Online, reported that large
numbers of steelworkers are coming forward to make asbestos-
related health claims connected with their work at a number of
steelworks operated during the 1950s, '60s and '70s, lawyers have
said.

A number of workers and their relatives from the former -- now
demolished -- British Steel-owned plant in Port Talbot and the
Llanwern steelworks are now coming forward after being diagnosed
with asbestos-related diseases.  The claims are historic and are
not in any way connected with the modern Port Talbot steel mill or
the way the Llanwern mill in Newport (which opened in 1961) was
run after the 1970s.

40% increase in claims

One law firm said in the past year it has seen a 40% increase in
claims from steelworks in the area and is currently working on
cases connected to the old Port Talbot plant and Llanwern as it
was run in the 1960s and 1970s and warned that many more could
surface.

A number of ex-workers from the 1960s and 1970s are believed to
have died from the asbestos related cancer mesothelioma, which is
linked with past exposure to asbestos dust.

The silent killer: The asbestos threat from East Moors steelworks
-- 36 years after it closed

The Spencer steelworks in Llanwern under construction in 1961The
Spencer steelworks in Llanwern under construction in 1961
Industrial disease lawyer Phillip Gower, of Cardiff-based Simpson
Millar solicitors, claimed many people are at risk.  He said:
"This disease can strike at any time and in anyone who has been
exposed in the past.

"There are hundreds out there who may be at risk.

"If people are concerned they should be checked out.

'A painful death'

"As well as these plants I'm also dealing with lots of claims from
steel plants which once operated all over South Wales. Many
workers suffered a painful death after exposure to asbestos.

"They are paying the ultimate price for a failure in basic health
and safety precautions."

As well as mesothelioma, other health conditions linked to
asbestos exposure include pleural thickening and asbestosis --
with symptoms often surfacing decades after exposure.  The widow
of former Port Talbot steelworker James Ryan, Maureen Ryan, is now
working with her solicitor to contact people who worked with him
at the former Port Talbot steelworks in the late '50s.

Mr Ryan used to cut sheets of asbestos at the factory and had
worked there from 1957 to 1960.  The original Port Talbot
steelworks where Mr Ryan worked was demolished in 1961.  He died
aged 78 in June 2013, three months after being diagnosed.

She said: "I still miss him terribly and will never get over it.

"He was a proud and independent man but he went down very quickly
and it was awful to watch him suffer."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Atty Helps Craft Genetic Mutation Defense
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Legal Newsline, reported
that a defense attorney at HeplerBroom has joined a handful of
lawyers nationwide who are introducing a genetic mutation defense
in asbestos litigation.

"BAP1" is a genetic mutation believed to increase a person's risk
for developing mesothelioma when exposed to asbestos.

Rebecca Nickelson of HeplerBroom is the lead counsel for defendant
Georgia Pacific in an asbestos case ongoing in St. Louis Circuit
Court. Prior to the company's eventual dismissal from the suit on
Jan. 6, Nickelson introduced the BAP1 defense when she filed a
motion for an order compelling a blood examination from plaintiff
David Bergstrom for genetic testing.

In their complaint, Bergstrom and his wife Kaye Bergstrom claim he
developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to Georgia
Pacific's asbestos-containing products during his career as a
drywall finisher.

In Nickelson's motion to compel examination, she relied on
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 60.01, which states that when the
physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court may
require the individual to submit to blood examination.

Nickelson argued that Bergstrom's physical condition was put in
controversy when he alleged that he suffers from mesothelioma
caused by exposure to Georgia Pacific's products.

In her request, Nickelson raised a controversial argument that a
BAP1 gene mutation "is known to cause mesothelioma."

Belief that a gene mutation alone can cause mesothelioma was the
hypothesis of Dr. Joseph R. Testa, geneticist and professor at the
Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, and Dr. Michele Carbone
of the University of Hawaii, when they began research into the
BAP1 gene mutation. The two were the first to discover that those
with BAP1 mutations had a predisposition to developing
mesothelioma.

Testa and Carbone believe the BAP1 gene mutation prevents the
patient's proteins from acting as tumor suppressors when cancer is
detected, meaning the patient is more susceptible to developing
cancers, including mesothelioma.

While, Carbone believes the BAP1 mutation alone can cause
mesothelioma without asbestos exposure, medical experts have not
been able to reach an agreement on this hypothesis.

"If this genetic testing demonstrates that Mr. Bergstrom has a
BAP1 gene mutation, the mutation's existence may show that
asbestos fibers attributable to Georgia Pacific products did not
cause Mr. Bergstrom's mesothelioma," Nickelson argued in her
motion.

"Consequently, Mr. Bergstrom's physical condition -- specifically,
whether he has a BAP 1 gene mutation -- is directly involved in
the question of what caused his alleged mesothelioma, which
plaintiffs must prove as a material element of their negligence
and strict liability claims against Georgia Pacific."

The Bergstroms, who are represented by Benjamin Schmickle of SWMK
Law in St. Louis, answered the motion to compel last July,
rejecting the BAP1 defense.

"If the BAP1 were not a gene but rather some product of Georgia
Pacific's ingested or inhaled by plaintiff, and any plaintiff were
to bring a lawsuit against Georgia Pacific alleging that the
plaintiffs use of BAP1 caused the plaintiff's mesothelioma, with a
current state of medical knowledge regarding BAP1, Georgia Pacific
would file a motion to dismiss the case, and the court would be
correct in doing so," the answer stated.

The Bergstroms claim Nickelson's request is misleading.

"In short, Georgia Pacific's assertion that a BAP1 gene mutation
is 'known' to cause mesothelioma is simply scientifically
unsupported," the plaintiffs argued.

"Without medical support, the motion is simply lawyer talk."

The Bergstroms agreed that it was possible for plaintiffs and
defendant medical experts to agree that some genetic component
makes certain individuals more susceptible to developing
particular diseases, but the "medical literature is replete with
examples of individuals who develop mesothelioma with much lower
and infrequent lifetime asbestos exposures."

Circuit Judge Robert Dierker was unconvinced and granted
Nickelson's motion on Aug. 1, compelling Bergstrom to submit to
blood examination for purposes of genetic testing.

Dierker, however, laid out conditions in a following Aug. 5 order.
He ordered the test to be conducted from Prevention Genetics,
which is only authorized to test for a BAP1 gene mutation. Upon
completion, the lab was ordered to share the results with
Nickelson and the plaintiffs' counsel. Prevention Genetics also
was ordered to destroy or turn over all of Bergstrom's blood
samples and results to his treating physician.

The confidential results of the genetic testing were not submitted
as evidence on the record.

Defendant Welco Manufacturing Company joined in Georgia Pacific's
motion to compel a blood examination on July 29 before Welco was
later dismissed from the suit on Aug. 26.

The case is still being litigated. The most recent action was a
settlement reached March 10 between the Bergstroms and KCG Inc.,
successor to building material makers Rew Materials and KC Wall
Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firms Say Favoritism Plagues NYC Fibro Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lowrey, writing for Law360, reported that attorneys for 45
law firms defending companies in asbestos litigation have urged a
New York administrative judge to halt proceedings in all of New
York City's asbestos cases for 60 days and overhaul their case
management order, citing "systemic favoritism" toward plaintiffs
and saying the 27-year-old order is outdated.

In a letter and motion filed with newly appointed Manhattan
Supreme Court Administrative Judge Peter H. Moulton, Pillsbury
Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP attorney and former New York Chief
Administrative Judge E. Leo Milonas argued that the decades-old
case management order was founded on consent obtained long before
many current counsel had become involved.

"Defendants' concerns surrounding the legitimacy and continued
viability of the current CMO cannot be overstated," Milonas wrote,
adding that the "recent interpretation of the CMO, implementation
of its coordinating procedures, and systemic favoritism have
together resulted in a far more significant departure from the
rights and remedies afforded to defendants under the [Civil
Practice Law and Rules] than even those defendants involved in the
original negotiations had bargained for, or could have reasonably
anticipated."

Milonas took particular exception to New York City's "pervasive
and prejudicial" asbestos case consolidations, saying its
practices in its routine bundling of cases that have little in
common fall "well outside modern norms." He also contended in his
letter that New York City courts have shown preferential treatment
to plaintiffs in setting a low bar for forum requirements, fast-
tracking and cherry-picking cases, and virtually always siding
with plaintiffs in discovery disputes.

The en-masse request is the latest dramatic development in New
York City's asbestos litigation scene. Former New York State
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is fighting a bribery indictment
alleging he reaped millions in "referral fees" for referring a
physician's asbestos patients to asbestos and mesothelioma
plaintiff firm Weitz & Luxenberg PC.

Silver, who pleaded not guilty, has argued that U.S. Attorney
Preet Bharara improperly leaked the charges to the media a day
before he issued a criminal complaint and used "inflammatory
rhetoric" in a news conference the next day. Bharara made
additional unfair statements assuming Silver's guilt during a Jan.
23 speech at New York Law School and a Feb. 10 interview with
MSNBC, according to the defense.

The defense attorneys' letter argued that New York jurists have
rendered summary judgment motions "a virtual nullity" by refusing
to rule on unopposed defense summary judgment motions and
overwhelmingly denying opposed ones. The courts also award damages
without proper scrutiny in lung cancer cases to smokers who allege
they were exposed to asbestos, the letter says.

Court rulings have also "upended" the burden of proof in the case,
placing it on the defendants, the letter says, and lifted a nearly
20-year deferral of punitive damages, the letter says.

"Based upon their innovative programs, such as the formation of a
Commercial Division, and dedicated jurists, New York courts should
enjoy a reputation for fair dealings and equal justice," the
letter says. "The contrast, however, between how defendants are
treated elsewhere in the New York court system and [New York City
asbestos litigation] is striking."

Milonas was not available for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Ct. Adopts Summary Judgment Recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Montana federal court has
adopted a report and recommendation awarding summary judgment to
BNSF Railway Co., agreeing with a magistrate judge's assessment
that the claims are time-barred.

In the March 27 order, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana rejected the plaintiffs' stance that by the time BNSF was
made part of an automatic bankruptcy stay, the statute of
limitations had already run.

The plaintiffs contended that BNSF negligently transported
asbestos in uncovered railroad cars from the W.R. Grace asbestos
mining operation in Lincoln County, Mont.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watchdog Gave Wrong Info on Fibro in Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Lamperd and Monique Hore, writing for Herald Sun, reported
that Victoria's environment watchdog gave residents near a deadly
old asbestos factory false assurances that their ceiling cavities
did not contain "breathable" asbestos fibres, according to
experts.

Two weeks after it was revealed scores of people had been exposed
and died from the deadly factory dust in Sunshine North, the
Environment Protection Authority told residents asbestos in their
roofs wasn't breathable.  But more sensitive testing equipment has
revealed dust samples taken from their ceiling cavities did
contain breathable asbestos.

The EPA asked for the test results to be provided to the Expert
Advisory Group so they could "be interpreted in conjunction with
the other extensive environmental testing already carried out".

Breathable asbestos can be inhaled deep into lung tissue, causing
cause asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma and
asbestosis.

Environmental health consultant Michael Kottek believes the EPA
may have deliberately misled residents.

"If there is a risk it is low, but it needs to be investigated
seriously.

"People rely on rigorous testing using appropriate mechanisms," he
said.

It appeared that the EPA analysis did not use good science and its
staff had not used a strong enough microscope to differentiate
between breathable and non-breathable fibres, he said.

An EPA spokesperson wrote in an email on October 31: "Asbestos
confirmed in roof cavities was of a size that it could not be
breathed in and did not pose any risk unless disturbed."

On October 12, the Sunday Herald Sun revealed that scores of
payouts for asbestos-related deaths linked to the old Wunderlich
factory had been quietly settled by asbestos firm CSR and had not
been reported to authorities.

Independent tests of ceiling cavities' dust samples in the area
showed asbestos fibres were present, some of which may have been
transported there by winds in the decades the factory was
operating.

The EPA slammed the Sunday Herald Sun's independent scientific
reports.

Residents said EPA representatives had told them the newspaper was
"scaremongering" and one claimed he was even told that it was safe
for him to remove his roof for renovation work.

A public statement still on the EPA's website says there is "no
breathable asbestos detected in Sunshine North homes". However,
new tests using a tenfold stronger microscope show asbestos --
fibres in the initial samples were of breathable size.

The Sunday Herald Sun posed a series of questions to the EPA,
including:

Why did the EPA make a distinction between breathable and non-
breathable asbestos fibres if it commissioned a test that didn't
allow the distinction to be made?

In a joint response from the Health Department and EPA that
question was not answered.

University of South Australia asbestos researcher Mike van Alphen
has seen the latest high-magnification reports on the samples and
said: "The amount of asbestos in some ceiling dust samples is not
trivial or minor".

"I have not seen a report on settled asbestos dust, deposited from
a distant source, where it has been categorically claimed that
there are no respirable asbestos fibres. This is peculiar," he
said.

"It is, however, common to find more fibres as you look at higher
magnification."

It is also understood the EPA has received results of air
monitoring in the Sunshine North area returned from high-
magnification analysis in the US which has detected asbestos in
the air.  These results have not been reported to the residents
and Health Department spokesman Bram Alexander did not directly
respond to requests for confirmation.

This is despite earlier tests that came back negative being
released by the EPA to a local newspaper. Sean Spencer, who
organised the first community meeting after the Sunday Herald
Sun's revelations in October, said residents felt there had been a
cover-up.

"Residents need to be reassured the EPA's first task is to protect
the public, not to protect itself and the Government from being
embarrassed.

"People just want to know the truth so they can make important
decisions about what they can and can't do in their houses," he
said.

"My experience is you have to push hard to get the EPA to look at
anything carefully."

In the joint EPA-Health Department response, Mr Alexander said the
Expert Advisory Group looking into the Sunshine North asbestos
claims would report to the Chief Health Officer when its own
testing program was finalized.  He reiterated the previous EPA
claims that "very small amounts of non-respirable asbestos in the
roof spaces of seven homes" were found.

"A final round of sampling has just been completed, and the EPA
and Department of Health and Human Services are awaiting these
results.

"To date, results of all of the indoor air tests for asbestos have
been below the limit of detection."

He said the testing regimen used complied with Australian and
international standards and were conducted in laboratories
accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Hospitals Close Lab After Fibro Find
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a lab in West Virginia
University Hospitals' Health Sciences Building has temporarily
closed following the discovery of asbestos in dust.

WVU Hospitals risk management and safety director Roger Osbourn
told The Dominion Post that the discovery is an isolated incident.
He said it most likely resulted when a pipe was bumped during
renovations on the floor above the lab.

University environmental health and safety director John Principe
said tests showed trace amounts of asbestos fibers. Air sample
tests were negative.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher Gets GBP210,00 After Mesothelioma
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schools Week reported that a retired teacher who spent 11 years
working in classrooms containing asbestos secured a personal
injury claim for GBP210,000 after she was diagnosed with
mesothelioma, the NASUWT union has revealed.

The union, which is at conference in Cardiff, England, revealed
details on April 3 of the successful claim that it helped secure
last year for the 70-year-old from the East Midlands, who was
diagnosed in 2013.

A spokesperson for the union said: "Between 1973 and 1984, the
member had worked in two secondary schools and taught in
classrooms containing asbestos that was present in the pre-
fabricated buildings, in ceiling tiles and on wall panels.

"In one particular classroom, asbestos ceiling tiles would
regularly fall down, which the member would have to pick up.

"In another classroom, asbestos tiles were replaced during term
time and during the school day, generating a large amount of dust.

"In addition, as the member was a science teacher, she regularly
had to handle asbestos mats."

It comes as the National Union of Teachers (NUT), which will
complete its annual conference in Harrogate, Yorkshire, on April
7, revealed the disturbing findings of its own survey into
members' experience of asbestos on April 6.

An NUT spokesperson said it showed that while "nearly 90 per cent
of schools still contain asbestos", there was still " a long way
to go in raising awareness" of the presence of the potentially
deadly substance.

A total of 201 teachers answered the survey questions, with a
third of them reporting "an incident which may have led to
exposure to asbestos" at their workplace.

In addition, 99 per cent of respondents agreed that there should
be a long-term government strategy for the removal of asbestos
from all schools.

An NUT spokesperson added that "80 per cent said that parents had
not been given information about the presence of asbestos and its
management. In the US this is mandatory".

Christine Blower, NUT general secretary, said: "The dangers of
asbestos in schools are obvious.

"The failure to assess risk, the slow responses and a lack of
knowledge and awareness are major factors, and as this survey
shows, what is needed to truly address the problem is a concerted
effort on a national scale."

An NASUWT spokesperson said that it had helped secure compensation
totalling GBP19,765,349 in total for members in 2014.  They had
been awarded over, for example, unfair dismissal, personal
injuries, criminal assault, unlawful deduction of wages, breach of
contract, constructive dismissal, victimisation and
discrimination.

Chris Keates, NASUWT general secretary, said: "The tragedy is that
in most cases compensation would be unnecessary if employers
followed good employment practices and appropriate health and
safety procedures.

"Instead, teachers have their careers, lives and health blighted
and millions of pounds of public money has to be spent in
compensation.

"Employers flout the law, but it's the teachers and the taxpayers
who pay the price."

A Department for Education spokesperson said: "Nothing is more
important than the health and safety of children and staff in our
schools.

"Schools have information to ensure those responsible for managing
asbestos are equipped to do so effectively."

She added: "Compensation payments are agreed on a case by case
basis and the department has no role in the process."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trust Claims Fibro Bill Good for W. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
asbestos trust claims act recently signed into law is good for
business in West Virginia, according to several attorneys who
played key roles in crafting the legislation.

A plaintiffs attorney, however, credited legislative leadership
for making sure needed compromises were included.

"The asbestos legislation and other legal reforms enacted this
year by the Legislature and signed by the governor will help
attract jobs into West Virginia and make West Virginia businesses
more competitive," said Mark Behrens, a national asbestos trust
expert and attorney with Shook Hardy & Bacon in Washington.

"The asbestos trust transparency bill will help ensure that West
Virginia businesses and other businesses that are sued in asbestos
lawsuits in West Virginia are held liable for their fair share of
the plaintiffs harm and will help those companies avoid having to
pay for the fault of others."

Senate Bill 411, also known as Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims
Transparency Act and the Asbestos and Silica Claims Priorities
Act, was signed March 18 by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin. It becomes law
June 9.

It will coordinate asbestos claims that are filed both in
litigation and trusts established in asbestos-related bankruptcy
proceedings, and it requires disclosure of existing and potential
asbestos bankruptcy trust claims and also establishes medical
criteria procedures and statute of limitations standards.

"This brings fairness to the system," said Goes, who also helped
craft the bill. "It brings efficiency. It is designed to give
everyone a fair shot of compensation if you are ill and worked
where asbestos was used. It is designed to make sure the process
works smoothly and fairly."Kelley Goes, an attorney with Jackson
Kelly in Charleston, called the asbestos trust claims system "a
large and cumbersome process that, in some cases, is corrupt."

According to the legislation, more than 100 businesses have went
bankrupt because of asbestos-related liability. That has resulted
in solvent companies -- more than 8,500 -- being named as asbestos
defendants. The bankrupt businesses have formed trusts to pay
damage claims, and it has created a multibillion-dollar
compensation system outside of the court system.

How the system typically works is that asbestos claimants often
seek compensation for asbestos-related conditions from solvent
defendants in civil lawsuits. But they also can seek money from
these trusts formed from bankruptcies.

There is "limited coordination and transparency between these two
paths to recovery," the legislation states, resulting in "the
suppression of evidence in asbestos actions and potential fraud."

The goal of the bill is to provide transparency for claims made
and prevent fraud and evidence suppression. Among other
provisions, the legislation requires plaintiffs who file asbestos
actions in the state to file sworn statements identifying all
asbestos trust claims they have filed.

"What happened is that some of these claims that were fraudulent
or frivolous bankrupted the more culpable parties," Swann said.
"Now, there isn't money for those who truly are sick to recover.
This will help ensure that money is available for people who
actually were exposed."Danielle Swann, another Jackson Kelly
attorney involved in the crafting of the bill, said her father
worked at Weirton Steel for more than 30 years. She talked to him
about the bill and how it would affect people he had worked with
there.

Behrens said that at least 120 days before trial a plaintiff will
have to identify all asbestos trust claims that have been made or
that potentially could be filed by the plaintiff.  If the
plaintiff identifies a claim that could be filed, the court may
stay the action until that claim is filed.

Then, at least 90 days before trial, if the defense side believes
there are additional trust claims the plaintiff can make, the
defendant ask the court to compel the plaintiff to file those
asbestos trust claims.  At least 30 days before trial, the court
will enter into the record a list of all asbestos trust claims the
plaintiff has made.

"The jury will be allowed to hear about all of the plaintiff's
asbestos exposures and reach a more fully informed decision as to
the cause of the person's injuries," Behrens said. "The
legislation also will promote honesty in litigation by providing a
mechanism to catch unscrupulous trial lawyers who may otherwise
try to tell one story about the plaintiff's exposures to asbestos
to a jury and a different story to asbestos trusts.

"Now, there is a Case Management Order that requires plaintiff to
identify any claims made or claims anticipated to be made. But we
heard that not all West Virginia plaintiff lawyers were following
that Case Management Order. The legislation provides a mechanism
to fill that gap."

He said that 30 days before trial, the court will enter a record
identifying all claims made against the asbestos trusts.

"Now, that plaintiffs know this information can be read to the
jury," Behrens said. "The hope is that it will encourage
plaintiffs to be honest in their claim process because this
information will be made available to the jury.

"And, the jury likely wouldn't look well upon someone who is
saying something that contradicts what they've said on trust
claims. The goal is to promote honest claiming. It saves everyone
time and money."

Anthony Majestro, president of the West Virginia Association for
Justice, said Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Trump and Senate
Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael made sure the bill had a clear
focus.

"The original version of SB 411 was authored by the U. S. Chamber
of Commerce and the American Tort Reform Association, and it was
pushed by Behrens, Goes and Swan, their lobbyists," Majestro said.
"The original bill would have provided immunity for manufacturers
and wrongdoers while delaying or eliminating the majority of
serious asbestos and silica cases.

"(Trump and Carmichael) recognized the significant problems with
the bill and encouraged key stakeholders to meet and put together
a compromise that allows seriously ill West Virginians to have
their day in court. We thank them for that opportunity."

The West Virginia Record is owned by the U.S. Chamber's Institute
for Legal Reform.

"While it's all well and good for Behrens, Goes and Swann to
trumpet the fact that the bill that passed is similar to bills in
other states and still allows asbestos victims to recover, the
widespread opposition to the original bill was based on the fact
that it assuredly would have barred a large number of claims in
their entirety and caused unconscionable delays for all
mesothelioma and asbestos cancer victims," Majestro said. "The
compromise removed the immunities in the original bill as well as
extensive new burdens for mesothelioma and asbestos cancer
patients, including new requirements for medical experts.  It also
restored claims for spouses and children who were exposed from
workers' clothing and acquired asbestosis."

Majestro said many provisions in the original bill weren't needed
because of the existing Case Management Order.

"It was also the result of an extensive compromise with lawyers
for both injured workers and manufacturers," he said. "The CMO has
handled these cases effectively for more than a decade, ensuring
that these cases are handled fairly and efficiently for all
parties.

"Its enforcement by Judge Ronald Wilson and Judge Arthur Recht
made much of SB 411 superfluous and unnecessary -- and Senator
Trump recognized that.  The only major change the compromise bill
made to the existing CMO was full disclosure when claims are filed
with the bankruptcy trusts."

Swann said the West Virginia legislation is similar to that in
Ohio.

"This has been in place in Ohio for some time, and the asbestos
litigation industry still is alive and well there," she said.

Goes said all of those involved spent "a lot of hours" fine-tuning
the bill.Behrens said Ohio, Wisconsin and Oklahoma have similar
laws in the books. And Arizona is headed in that direction. He
said he spent a few weeks in Charleston during the session working
on the bill, and he praised all of those who worked on it,
including Majestro, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles
Trump (R-Morgan), Senate Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael
(R-Jackson), Goes, Swann and others who came in from around the
country, including attorneys from Motley Rice and Goldberg Persky.

"We were very directly involved, especially in the Senate
Judiciary. Chairman Trump took great care and put forth a great
amount of time and effort to get all of the stakeholders together.
Everyone went over the bill, literally line by line. There were
compromises, the language was improved. It included people who are
on the ground on both sides of this litigation. We wanted to make
sure it worked and that the process was fair to the trusts, the
companies doing business now and the people who have been
affected.""The bill was drafted based on legislation that had
passed in other states," Swann said. "Our (Swann and Goes)
involvement in the negotiations were to tailor it to the West
Virginia legal system.

Behrens praised Trump's dedication to the bill.

"He brought all of the stakeholders together and he personally sat
through meetings," he said. "He wanted to ensure it was fair for
everybody involved and good for the people of West Virginia.
Carmichael also also sat in on some of those stakeholder meetings
as well. It's great when legislative leaders are involved and
engaged in the issue and knowledgeable about it.

"Chairman Trump said these negotiations raised things to a new
level of professionalism. He was pleased with how both sides
worked together on how to do this."

Goes said the importance of the bill can't be underestimated.

"Now, there are insurers who have paid millions over the years
because of these claims," she said. "This bill will help eliminate
that. It also will lower the cost of doing business in West
Virginia.

"As for existing employers who have asbestos claims on going, this
will help resolve those claims so they can move on with business.
The bottom line is that you encourage people to do business when
you manage the legal questions. With law, the ultimate goal is to
provide clear rules of the road.

"This process was a true compromise with both sides gave up things
they'd like to have seen. But, it's very workable. It provides
certainty and assurances against fraud while continuing to allow
plaintiffs lawyers to practice like they have been."

Goes said it also is important for West Virginians to know some
allegations that started when the bill was introduced were false.
If someone has been exposed to asbestos, she said they still can
recover damages.

"I think it's important to counteract some of the negative
campaigning that happened early on in the process," she said. "It
does not prevent anyone from recovering from asbestos, and that
includes first or second exposures for family members as well as
widow benefits.

"It is a fair application of the benefits available, and no one is
cut out. If you were eligible before, you're still eligible."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metex Trust Now Accepting Fibro PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lucarelli, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that as
of March 9, 2015, Metex Manufacturing Corp., formerly known as
Kentile Floors Inc., is accepting asbestos-related personal injury
and death claims through a trust established under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code. Per the trust's website, the
Initial Claim Filing Date is September 9, 2015. All claims filed
with the Trust between March 9, 2015 and September 9, 2015 will be
deemed filed with the Trust on the Initial Claim Filing Date and
will be processed in the order stipulated by the Trust's
Distribution Procedures.

Over the course of the 20th century, Kentile Floors Inc. would
become an industry leader in the United States in commercial and
residential flooring specializing in floor tiles. Unfortunately,
many of the composite tiles the company manufactured that were
used in homes and businesses throughout the country included
significant amounts of asbestos. Exposure to the asbestos
contained in Kentile tiles would eventually lead to the
development of debilitating and, in some cases, deadly diseases in
tens of thousands of Americans.

Kentile Floors Inc. would file for Chapter 11 on November 20, 1992
after being named in thousands of asbestos related lawsuits for
personal injury and wrongful death. After unsuccessfully
attempting to sell its operations, the company liquidated its
assets in 1993. Kentile's reorganization plan was confirmed on
December 15, 1998 and it emerged from bankruptcy under the new
name Metex Manufacturing Corp. Metex would take on Kentile's
asbestos liabilities and through settlement or dismissal, resolved
over 10,000 asbestos-related lawsuits over the next decade. By
2012, the costs of defending and resolving additional claims
became too substantial so Metex filed for Chapter 11 on November
9th of that year.

As part of the new reorganization plan, the Metex Asbestos PI
Trust Distribution Procedures outlines the Trust's payment
procedures for the thousands of active and inactive asbestos-
related claims as well as any future claims. The Trust
Distribution Procedures, or TDP, recognizes 8 Scheduled Disease
levels ranging from minor asbestos disease, asbestosis, and
pleural disease to the most serious and life-threatening asbestos-
related disease, mesothelioma. If significant past exposure to
asbestos-containing Kentile products can be proven, based on the
disease level of the claimant, the Trust will pay out a scheduled
value with the most severe diseases receiving the largest
payments. The scheduled value amounts have been calculated with
the goal of paying all past and current claims equitably while
assuring funds will exist to pay all expected future claims.

If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any
other asbestos-related disease due to exposure to a Kentile
product, consult an attorney to learn more about filing a claim
with the Metex Asbestos PI Trust.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Took Life of Mum and Art Teacher
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Falconer, writing for Gloucester Citizen, reported that a
legal battle is being fought by the family of a former art teacher
who died from cancer linked to exposure to asbestos dust and
fibres.

Jennifer (Jen) Barnett from Painswick, England, died five months'
ago aged 60 after being diagnosed with the extremely aggressive
cancer mesothelioma which affects the lining of the lungs, leaving
her husband Nigel and the rest of the family devastated.

At the inquest to her death which took place in January at
Gloucestershire coroner Katy Skerrett, recorded a verdict of death
as a result of industrial disease.

Jen taught at Archway School between 1980 and 1997, where she was
known as Miss Shonk, and rose to become head of art before she
left to have her fourth child at the age of 42. Her family
believes she came into contact with asbestos during her time there
when she pinned pupils' work up for display onto the ceilings and
walls.  She also was believed to have been exposed to asbestos
when she cut up a shed as a teenager, the patholigist conducting
the post mortem examination was told. Her widower Nigel told the
inquest in January she came in to contact with asbestos then, and
at Archway.

"Jen was a fantastic wife and a wonderful mother to our four
children," said her widower Nigel. "She was so precious to us and
it is hard to believe she's gone. Prior to her illness, she was a
very fit and healthy 60-year old who enjoyed playing tennis in her
spare time and was a dedicated and extremely talented artist who
continued to work right up until her death. Our youngest daughter
was only 18 when her mum passed away and was just about to start
university. The whole family misses her dreadfully and we are all
shocked and devastated that her life was cut short so suddenly."

Nigel has now instructed specialist asbestos disease lawyers at
Novum Law to help investigate Jen's working conditions at the
school.

"I will never forget the consultant at the hospital asking Jen if
she'd ever been exposed to asbestos and her saying a definite
'yes' because she knew that a lot of asbestos was previously used
in school buildings," he said. "I am hoping that former teachers
or ex-pupils will come forward who may have some knowledge about
the asbestos ceiling tiles at Archway School or know of any other
asbestos products or materials that were used there. I know that
Jen was involved in clay modelling and that the damp cupboard for
storing clay items was lined with asbestos board.

"Jen fought the cancer bravely and remained positive throughout
gruelling sessions of chemotherapy. The day before she died, she
even managed to come to the little village church where we were
married to celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary and we had a
very special day together as a family. Photographs taken that day
show her smiling and we will always treasure them."

Helen Grady, an asbestos disease solicitor at Novum Law,
specialising in mesothelioma cases, said: "It is alarming that we
are seeing more and more cases involving teachers. Asbestos was
widely used in the UK as a building material for fire proofing and
insulation from the 1950s up until 1985, when most types were
banned. It was banned completely from new buildings in 1999 but
sadly, the damage had already been done for thousands of victims
who have paid the ultimate price for going to work every day.

"We hope that anybody who may have attended Archway School or
worked there remembers Jen and can shed more light on how she got
exposed to asbestos."

Archway headteacher Colin Belford said: "We were all saddened to
learn of Jenny Shonk's death last year. "Staff who worked with her
at Archway spoke of her with great affection and admiration. "We
were not aware of the issues raised by the coroner.

"I can say that all of the building work which has taken place at
Archway in recent years is fully compliant with modern building
regulations.

"I am not aware of any current risk to staff or students but will
ask the local authority for its assurance on this matter."

Phil Ashbee-Dobbins, Gloucestershire County Council asbestos
administration officer, said: "Buildings built in the 1960s and
1970s, and even up until the late 90s often have asbestos in them.

"It doesn't pose a risk unless it is disturbed, and we help
schools under local authority control keep their own accurate
records and to make sure it is treated properly and safely.

"Archway School has been extensively renovated in recent years. In
addition, regular asbestos audits are completed as part of
standard health and safety procedures.

"While we are unable to comment on this specific case, we would
like to reassure parents, pupils and teachers that current
guidance and practices in our county's schools appropriately
manage the risks associated with asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Addresses Timeliness in Fibro Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that the Pennsylvania Superior
Court recently addressed the timeliness of an asbestos-related
wrongful death action.  In Wygant v. GE, 2015 Pa. Super. LEXIS
118, 2015 PA Super 56 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015), the Superior Court
concluded, among other things, that the two-year statute of
limitations applicable to asbestos-related wrongful death
actions begins to run at the time of diagnosis.  The case
specifically addressed an asbestos-related wrongful death claim
wherein Plaintiff's case was filed more than two years after
diagnosis but within two years of the date of Plaintiff's
Decedent's death.

In its decision, the Court cited statutory language and concluded
that the statute called into question did, in fact, apply to
asbestos-related wrongful death actions and that the instant
wrongful death action was time barred, having been filed more than
two years after Plaintiff's Decedent was diagnosed with
mesothelioma.

In light of the specific statutory language referenced by the
Court and this Superior Court decision, it would be advantageous
for an asbestos defendant to establish that the injured person was
informed by a licensed physician that his/her injuries were the
result of asbestos exposure.  This type of information removes
some of the guesswork related to when a person knew, or in the
exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that an
alleged injury was caused by such exposure.  The statute provides
in pertinent part that the two-year period begins to run from the
date on which the person is informed by a licensed physician that
the person has been injured by exposure to asbestos, or upon the
date on which the person knew or in the exercise of reasonable
diligence should have known that the person had an injury which
was caused by such exposure, whichever date occurs first.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Fibro at Service Center
-----------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Health & Safety reported that A.M. Castle & Co. was
cited for two repeat five serious safety violations after a
complaint led to an OSHA investigation of the company's Franklin
Park, IL, site. The complaint alleged various safety and health
hazards including occupational exposure to asbestos, insufficient
training for employees on asbestos in the workplace, and lack of
permit-required confined space procedures.

"A.M. Castle has a responsibility to train its workers in the
hazards of being exposed to asbestos and confined spaces," said
Angeline Loftus, OSHA's area director in Des Plaines. "Asbestos
exposure can cause long-term and irreversible damage to the lungs.
A. M. Castle needs to re-evaluate this facility and correct these
hazards immediately."

Two repeated violations were given due to not providing awareness
training to employees who perform housekeeping operations in areas
that contain asbestos or presumed asbestos containing material,
and not making a copy of the OSHA Asbestos Standard readily
available and accessible to affected employees.

The five serious violations were cited for: not evaluating the
workplace to determine if any confined spaces were permit-
required; not posting danger signs or notifying employees of a
permit-required confined space; not developing and implementing a
written permit-required confined space entry program; failing to
inform employees, who perform maintenance in areas where asbestos
is present, of the presence, quantity and location of asbestos
containing material or presumed asbestos containing material which
might have been contacted during such work activities; failing to
ensure training on asbestos was in accordance with OSHA standards;
and failing to provide annual asbestos training to employees
involved in Class IV asbestos operations.


                             *********

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 2015. 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  * * *