---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 77


                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABS: Workable Causation Needed to Certify Class Action
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces "Robbins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
AILEEN DANKO: Faces "Wauchope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AIR NEW ZEALAND: Passengers Urged to Join Fare Price-Fixing Suit

ALABAMA: Davis' Bid to Stay Same-Sex Marriage Injunction Nixed
ALLSTATE CORP: Sebastian's Bid to File 2nd Amended Case Tossed
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Brehm Has Until April 24 to File Status Report
APPLE INC: Misrepresents Old iPhone 4G Capabilities, "Jones" Says
APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Class Suit Over Data Mining

ARAB ELECTRIC: Cooperative Members File $32MM Class Action
ARIZONA: Corrections Dept. Gets $12MM for Class Action Settlement
ATLANTIC POWER: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
AUTOMATED DATA: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Silfee" Suit
AXA EQUITABLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Shadow Insurance Transactions

BERKELEY CONTRACT: July 15 Fairness Hearing Set in "Freeman" Case
BRINK'S GLOBAL: Sued in California Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Judge Dismisses 24,000 Red-Light Camera Cases
CALIFORNIA: Two School Districts to Settle PE Class Action
CALVIN KLEIN: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Claims

CANADA: VA Minister Addresses Afghan Veterans' Class Action
CHANG GUANN: Consumers' Foundation to File Class Action
CHELSEA REST: Faces "Atlatenco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: 4th Cir. Revives Investor Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gas Drilling Settlement Won't Halt Other Suits

CITY SIGHTS: Settles Class Action Over Twin America Joint Venture
COCA-COLA: Watchdog Claims Vitaminwater Brand Name Misleading
COOPER VISION: Faces "Lubin" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
COOPER VISION: Robins Kaplan Files Suit Over Contact Lens Pricing
DE BEERS: B.C. Court Certifies Diamond Price-Fixing Class Action

DIET DRUGS: Herman and Hirschbein Lose 3rd Cir. Appeal
DINING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Vicario' Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DUKE ENERGY: Settles Shareholder Suit for Nearly $50 Million
DYNAMIC ENERGY: "York" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ELITE SHOW: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif.

EMPIRE AUTO: Judge Won't Grant Conditional Cert. in "Reed" Case
ESPAR INC: RIC Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over Parking Heaters-Price Fixing
ESPAR INC: Raccoon Valley Files Antitrust Class Suit in New York
EXPEDIA INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit Over Deceptive Ads
FIFTH GENERATION: Falsely Marketed Vodka Products, Action Claims

FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS: Client's Suit Over Legal Fees Can Proceed
FLORIDA: Citrus Owners May Face Long Wait to Get Compensation
FRANKLY CO.: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
FULL CITIZENSHIP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
GE CAPITAL: Sells Consumer Financing Unit Amid Class Action

GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Carcinogenic Solvents
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Further Ignition Switch Suit Discovery
GEORGIA: DOJ Mulls Class Action Over Inadequate Juvenile Defense
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Jedrychowski" Suit Over Product Misbranding
GURSTEL CHARGO: Obtains Final Approval of Smith Suit Settlement

GYPSOPHILA NAIL: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Autonomy Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
HOSTO & BUCHAN: Accused of Winning By Submitting False Affidavits
HUTCHISON TREE: Faces "Berber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INDUSTRIAL METAL: Faces "Sianez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Student Loan Suit
J.J CUSTOM: Faces "Piecora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JAMES D. SILL: Court Junks Summary Judgment Bid in "Goldsmith"
JAMES HARDIE: 400+ Homeowners Join Cladding Class Action
JASON'S PREMIER: Faces "Dempsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Sued Over Standardize Background Check Policies
KAISER FOUNDATION: Plan Coverage Depends on "Normal Appearance"
KESTLER DIGITAL: Faces "Sequeida" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KRAFT FOODS: Illegally Manipulates Winter Wheat Prices, Suit Says
KSH YAMATO: Sued in Fla. Over Disabled Inaccessible Facilities

LENOVO GROUP: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Superfish Class-Action
LICHTER GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Malinowski" May Amend Complaint
LITTLE GENERAL: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Goray" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MACY'S WEST: Judge Approves $3MM OT Class Action Settlement

MARYLAND: MTA Faces Class Suit Over Mobility/Paratransit Program
MCCLINTON ENERGY: Conditional Cert. Granted in Part in "McCloud"
MICHIGAN: Court Finds "Jackson" Case Frivolous
MICROSOFT INC: Faces Class Action Over $4,500 Xbox Bill
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 9th Cir. Hears Oral Arguments in O'Bannon Case

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Still Faces Individual Concussion Suits
NEIL JONES: Court Adopts Findings, Junks "Valdez" Deal
NESTLE PURINA: Pet Food Class Action Settlement Deadline Passes
NEW GENERATION FUSION: Stipulation for Dismissal Stricken Out
NEW JERSEY: 3rd Cir. Tosses Aruanno's Mandamus Petition

NEW MIAMI, OH: Speed Camera Class Action Proceedings Ongoing
NEW YORK, NY: Delays Installation of Cameras at Rikers Island Jail
NVIDIA CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates 3 Class Actions
ORGANO GOLD: Faces Class Suit Over Dangerous Mushroom in Coffee
PAYTIME INC: Judge Tosses Pennsylvania Data Breach Class Action

PERMANENT WORKERS: Faces "Portillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Has Announced Massive Write-Down of Assets
PFIZER INC: Judge Approves $400MM Class Action Settlement
PICNIC FOOD: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Burkhardt" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

PROPHASE LABS: Judge Narrows Claims in "Weisblum" Suit
PVH CORP: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Nelson" Suit Says
QUIKSILVER INC: Faces "Stevens" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
QUIKSILVER INC: Faces "Stevens" 2nd Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Accused of Selling Prevagen With False Claims

RANGE RESOURCES: Court Tosses Parrish's Bid to Remand Case
SA GEAR: Sued in Ill. Over Defective Timing Chains Tensioners
SAFENAME: Wins Multi-Complainant, Multi-Domain UDRP Dispute
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Arbiter Denies Bid for Repossession Payout
SARKU JAPAN: Faces Unpaid Wages Class Action in California

STUDENT LOAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Dugger" Suit Claims
TATTLE TAIL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wall" Suit Claims
TELETECH HOLDINGS: S.D. Ohio Court Conditially Certifies Class
TEXAS: Fifth Circuit Upholds "Dunn" Suit Dismissal
TEXAS BRINE: Special Master Connected to Plaintiff Attorney

TIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
TIME WARNER: Cal. Appeals Court Won't Revive "Fischer" Suit
TING HSIN: Faces Class Action Over Food Scandal
THASSOS MARBLE: Faces "Villa' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UMPQUA BANK: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims

VOCATION: Class Action Over Disclosure Failures Ongoing
UNITED PARCEL: Supreme Court Revives Suit Alleging Pregnancy Bias
WAYNE, NC: Summary Judgment Bid in McLawhorn Case Okayed in Part
WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Falsely Marketing Gently Raised Chickens
WILLIAM MORRIS: Sued by Fashion Week Crew Over Unpaid Overtime

WISE INTERVENTION: Faces "Black' Suit over Failure to Pay OT
ZWICKER & ASSOC: 6th Cir. Revives Federal Claims in "Wise" Suit

* Lawyers Urge Investors to Sue Tax Avoidance Advisers


                        Asbestos Litigation


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
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Thomasson" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Schaffer" Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Fails in Bid to Junk "Maag" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Livingston" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurer Not Obligated to Pay Untimely Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Wins Summary Judgment in Calif. Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Abbott" Suit Remanded to State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Stays Trial of "Hockler" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Widow Fails in Bid for Dependent Benefits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Court Affirms Verdict Against Scapa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Hires Fibro Claims Expert

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 630 PI Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suits Remain Pending Against IDEX Corp.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ametek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 880 Fibro Cases vs. U.S. Steel Remain Pending

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Have 3,400 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Has $249.1MM Est. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Corp. Has $447.4MM LAE Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office Depot's Unit Continues to Defend Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 5,200 Fibro Claims


                            *********


ABBOTT LABS: Workable Causation Needed to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lockwood, Esq. -- clockwood@osler.com -- Kelly Osaka, Esq.,
-- kosaka@osler.com -- and Lindsay Rauccio, Esq. --
lrauccio@osler.com -- of Osler report that in Charlton v. Abbott
Laboratories, Ltd., 2015 BCCA 26 (Charlton), the British Columbia
Court of Appeal clarified the evidentiary threshold plaintiffs
must satisfy at the certification stage in the context of product
liability class actions.  In particular, the Court confirmed that
plaintiffs alleging that a product causes adverse effects or
injury must adduce evidence of a workable methodology to
demonstrate that the product in question was capable of causing
adverse effects on a class-wide basis.  In so ruling, the Court
reiterated the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the
2013 "indirect purchaser trilogy," and affirmed their application
to the product liability context.  Ultimately, the plaintiffs in
Charlton failed to adduce sufficient evidence of general
causation, which proved fatal to the certification of the action.

Background

In 2011, a class action was commenced against Abbott Laboratories,
Ltd. and Apotex, Inc. on behalf of all individuals in Canada who
were prescribed a drug containing sibutramine, on the basis that
ingestion of sibutramine allegedly caused or contributed to
adverse cardiovascular health, including heart attacks, strokes,
increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and irregular
heartbeat.  The plaintiffs pleaded various causes of action,
including negligence, failure to warn and breaches of the B.C.
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Competition
Act, in addition to seeking damages pursuant to the doctrine of
waiver of tort.

Notably, some of the members of the class reported suffering from
cardiovascular events like heart attacks or strokes after being
prescribed sibutramine, while others had not.  Furthermore, it was
unclear from the evidence how many class members (if any) had a
pre-existing history of cardiovascular illness.

Expert Evidence at Certification

The plaintiffs filed two medical expert reports in support of
their application for certification, and the defendants filed two
responding expert reports.  After considering the expert evidence
as whole, the Court of Appeal summarized the evidence as follows:

There was some evidence of increased risk for cardiovascular
events in individuals with pre-existing heart problems.

The Canadian product monograph cautioned against prescribing
sibutramine to patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.
There was no evidence presented to suggest that the drugs in
question had in fact been prescribed to individuals with
pre-existing conditions.

The extent of the risk for individuals with no history of
cardiovascular disease had not been studied, and the statistical
evidence that was available did not demonstrate a measurable
increase in the risk for patients with no history of
cardiovascular disease.

The B.C. Supreme Court's Decision on Certification

The certification judge found the claim met the test for
certification in all respects and certified the class, which was
defined as "[a]ll persons in Canada who were prescribed and
ingested [sibutramine] . . ."

Among the various common issues certified by the certification
judge was the issue of whether sibutramine causes or contributes
to heart attacks, strokes and irregular heartbeat in relation to
all Canadian patients who were prescribed and ingested drugs
containing sibutramine, whether or not they had a pre-existing
cardiovascular condition.

The appellants appealed the certification decision, arguing that
the certification judge erred in principle by certifying the
proceedings.  The appellants focused their argument on the
asserted failure of the plaintiffs to lead evidence of a
methodology for establishing general causation on a class-wide
basis.

B.C. Court of Appeal Overturns Certification

Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's 2013 trilogy of cases in
the indirect purchaser context, the B.C. Court of Appeal
reiterated the principle that a class action should not be
certified where a plaintiff fails to adduce some evidentiary basis
for a methodology that could be used by the Court to answer the
common questions.  In this regard, the Court observed that the
question of class-wide general causation should not be certified
as a common issue without evidence of a methodology to prove such
causation in respect of the class as a whole.  In so commenting,
the Court drew a distinction between certain prior pharmaceutical
class actions in which causation had been held to be sufficiently
established on the basis of evidence of a general increase in risk
to the class caused by using the drug in question and the case
before it, where no such generalized risk data was available.

The Court ultimately concluded that the lack of a methodology for
demonstrating general causation was an insurmountable evidentiary
hurdle:

[t]here was no evidence of a methodology for establishing that the
class as a whole, as opposed to those who were wrongly prescribed
sibutramine despite a history of disease, was affected or put at
risk by its use of sibutramine. . . .

While there is no dispute that those with pre-existing
cardiopulmonary disease are at a statistically increased risk of
adverse cardiac events, this is not a case where the experts
disagree on the extent of the risk, but rather, a case where the
experts are uncertain whether there is a risk to the class as a
whole and cannot describe a methodology for addressing that
question.

The remaining common issues hinged upon a finding of general
causation on a class-wide basis.  Accordingly, absent a workable
methodology for addressing causation, the Court concluded that
certification should not have been granted and set aside the
certification order of the trial judge.

Notably, in denying certification, the B.C. Court of Appeal also
harmonized an apparent inconsistency between the trial judge's
decision in Charlton and a parallel proceeding in Quebec in which
certification had been denied (though admittedly in the context of
a different legal regime).  In particular, the Quebec Superior
Court was presented with a similar evidentiary record to that in
Charlton, and held in a decision released in 2012 that the
evidence put forward by the plaintiffs in that case was
insufficient to meet the test for class action authorization
pursuant to section 1003 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure.

Implications: A Stricter Approach to Certification

The appellate decision in Charlton represents a clear affirmation
of the recent judicial statements to the effect that class action
plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing causation on a class-
wide basis.  In particular, the case illustrates the fact that
causation cannot simply be presumed, nor is it sufficient for
plaintiffs to simply argue that a product could -- in the abstract
-- cause injury to certain consumers.  Rather, the plaintiffs must
adduce some evidence -- or at least a workable methodology at the
certification stage -- in order to satisfy the courts that some
manner of class-wide conclusions regarding causation could
reasonably be drawn.

Moreover, the case is also reflective of the increased willingness
on the part of the courts to intervene at the certification stage
where the underlying merits of the proceedings are somehow
problematic.  In particular, as discussed in a previous Osler
Update, the courts appear to have moved away from a rigid
application of the certification criteria to a broader
consideration of the proceedings as a whole.  Although the
certification test is not intended to be a test of the merits of
the action, the decision in Charlton nonetheless demonstrates the
crucial importance of the evidentiary record, even at the
certification stage.  In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's
reaffirmation that certification should serve as a "meaningful
screening device", courts are now carefully considering the inter-
relationship between the definition of the class, the common
issues and the available evidence to determine not only whether
the certification test has been met, but also whether the matter
should be allowed to proceed more generally.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces "Robbins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Robbins, Domonique Marceau and Veronique Hepler,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., and Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-06187 (W.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a casual apparel retailer company
headquartered at 6301 Fitch Path, New Albany, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq.
      Seth Richard Lesser, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive
      Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com
              slesser@klafterolsen.com


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 16 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of California, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased ACADIA
securities between February 26, 2015 and March 11, 2015,
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

ACADIA is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of medicines to address unmet medical needs
in neurological and related central nervous system disorders.
ACADIA has a pipeline of product candidates led by NUPLAZID(TM)
(pimavanserin), which is in Phase III development as a treatment
for Parkinson's disease psychosis ("PDP").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse facts regarding the timing of Acadia's submission of its
New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA for NUPLAZID.  As a result
of defendants' false and misleading statements or omissions during
the Class Period, Acadia securities traded at artificially
inflated prices, with its stock trading at prices above $45 per
share.

On March 11, 2015, ACADIA issued a press release announcing a
change in the timing of its planned New Drug Application ("NDA")
submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for
NUPLAZID.  The Company had previously planned to submit the NDA
for NUPLAZID in the first quarter of 2015, now, however, it
planned to submit its NUPLAZID NDA for the treatment of PDP in the
second half of 2015.

In a separate press release the same day, ACADIA announced the
abrupt retirement of the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")
and director, Uli Hacksell.

As a result of this news, ACADIA common stock dropped $9.94 per
share to close at $34.82 per share on March 12, 2015, a one-day
decline of 22% on volume of 15 million shares.

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


AILEEN DANKO: Faces "Wauchope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merlande Wauchope, and all others similarly situated v. Aileen
Danko, M.D., LLC d/b/a Kids' Choice Pediatric Orthopaedics, Case
No. 0:15-cv-60675 (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an orthopedic clinic in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nolan Keith Klein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
      Wells Fargo Tower
      One East Broward Blvd., Ste. 1500
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 745-0588
      Facsimile: (305) 397-1924
      E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


AIR NEW ZEALAND: Passengers Urged to Join Fare Price-Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reports that passengers who have flown across the
Pacific in the past 15 years, including on Air New Zealand, are
being asked to join a law suit alleging airlines fixed prices on
trans-Pacific routes.

An advertisement published in New Zealand media on March 17 said
people who bought airline tickets between the United States and
Asia, Australia could receive benefits from class action
settlements.

The class action being defended in the United States alleges that
Air New Zealand together with other airlines acted anti-
competitively in respect of fares and surcharges on trans-Pacific
routes.

The Californian company behind the action AirlineSettlement.com
said a total of US$39.5 million (NZ$53.5 million) in settlements
had already been reached with eight airlines including Cathay
Pacific, Air France, Malaysia Airlines, Singapore Airlines and
Qantas.

The lawsuit, filed in northern California, continues against five
airlines who decided not to settle including Air New Zealand, All
Nippon Airways, EVA Airways, Philippines Airlines and China
Airlines (Taiwan), the ad says.

The lawsuit claims airlines agreed to fix prices on tickets for
trans-Pacific air travel.

The San Francisco law firm behind the action Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy could not be reached for comment.

An Air New Zealand spokeswoman Imogen Dennis said the proceedings
were filed in 2007 and the airline disclosed the existence of the
claim in its annual accounts since then.

The airline's own internal investigation found no basis for the
claim which it considers to be "entirely opportunistic", Dennis
said.

Airfares were highly competitive and transparent to travellers and
travel agents, she said.

This was the second class action Air New Zealand was defending in
the US.

Air New Zealand and other airlines have also faced allegations of
anti-competitive conduct in relation to air cargo pricing.

Air New Zealand was cleared by the European Commission in 2010,
the US Department of Justice in 2011, and the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission last year, but a class action
against the airline in the US remains.

A similar, previously reported class action filed in Australia was
discontinued against Air New Zealand in June 2014 resulting in
legal costs of $3m being recovered by Air New Zealand.

If a court determined Air New Zealand had breached competition
laws the company would have potential liability for damages or
pecuniary penalties.


ALABAMA: Davis' Bid to Stay Same-Sex Marriage Injunction Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scottie Thomaston, writing for Equality On Trial, reports that
Judge Granade has just issued an order in Strawser v. Strange, the
challenge to Alabama's same-sex marriage ban being litigated by
the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), refusing to put the
injunction on hold.

Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis made the request to stay the
injunction after the Alabama Supreme Court issued its ruling
forbidding county probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to
same-sex couples. Davis is currently the only probate judge in the
state bound by a federal injunction.  He argued to the court that
due to the conflicting rulings in federal and state courts on this
question, the injunction should be put on hold and he shouldn't be
bound to continue issuing licensing.

Judge Granade did not find his arguments convincing: "Although the
court would agree that the developments in these same-sex marriage
cases has at times seemed dizzying, the court finds that Judge
Davis has not shown that a stay is warranted."

Finding that "Judge Davis has not argued, much less shown that he
is likely to succeed on the merits," and that he "has also failed
to show how he will be irreparably injured" without a stay, the
judge concluded the injunction will remain in effect.

She noted that the Alabama Supreme Court discussed the injunction
against Judge Davis in its decision, and that they suggested "he
remains bound by this court's orders."

Responses were due on March 17 in another issue in this case: NCLR
has asked Judge Granade to allow new plaintiffs and defendants to
be added to the case, and for the challenge to proceed as a class-
action involving all same-sex couples who want to get married in
Alabama, and all probate judges.

Alabama's attorney general has responded to the request, asking
the court to stall the proceedings in the case until the Supreme
Court issues its ruling in the marriage cases in late June.
Judge Davis is the only other current defendant in the case, and
his response was due on March 17.


ALLSTATE CORP: Sebastian's Bid to File 2nd Amended Case Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied a motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint in CONNIE H. SEBASTIAN, Plaintiff,
v. ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04850-
YGR, (N.D. Cal.).

"The Court is mindful of the strong preference for decisions on
the merits of a case, rather than dismissal due to procedural
reasons or technicalities, and the extreme liberality with which
it must view pro se pleadings. On this basis, the Court has
permitted this case to continue for over a year and a half, during
which time the Court expended substantial resources in order to
assist Ms. Sebastian in seeking relief. Unfortunately, Ms.
Sebastian and Mr. Hernandez have elected to reject this
assistance," wrote Judge Rogers in his March 27, 2015
ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/wAXqT1from
Leagle.com.  "There being no operative complaint, the action is
dismissed with prejudice."

Connie H. Sebastian, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Allstate Corporation, Defendant, represented by Giovanna A.
Ferrari -- gferrari@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Jessica
Eve Freed Mendelson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Surety Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Giovanna
A. Ferrari, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Jessica Eve Freed Mendelson,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Brehm Has Until April 24 to File Status Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYLE BREHM, on behalf of Willard F. Brehm, Gladys M. Brehm, the
Willard F. Brehm Revocable Trust and the Gladys M. Brehm Revocable
Trust, REX WELDON, on behalf of Nancy Weldon, Robert Clark Weldon
and the Robert Clark Weldon and Nancy Weldon Trust, JILL
SCHUNEMAN, on behalf of herself and the Jill Schuneman Living
Trust, and DAVID BUCKLEY, on behalf of himself, the Robert L.
McKissick Irrevocable Trust and the Brenda L. Buckley Revocable
Trust, collectively on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REBECCA ENGLE, BRIAN SCHUSTER,
ENGLE & SCHUSTER FINANCIAL, INC.; AMERICAN CAPITAL CORPORATION;
ROYAL PALM CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; GERALD PARKER, LIANA DOBARGANES
HARRINGTON, in her capacity as sole heir or putative personal
representative of the Estate of Patrick Harrington, deceased;
Defendants, NO. 8:07CV254, (D. Neb.) is before the court after a
review of the court file and pursuant to NECivR 41.2, which states
in pertinent part: "At any time, a case not being prosecuted with
reasonable diligence may be dismissed for lack of prosecution."

Further, on July 29, 2014, the court entered an order requiring
the plaintiffs to file a status report or a motion for final
approval of class action settlement within 180 days of the order.
The plaintiffs have not filed any documents since the order.

Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken ruled on April 10,
2015, that the plaintiffs have until the close of business on
April 24, 2015, to comply with the court's July 29, 2014, Order or
show cause why the case should not be dismissed as against the
defendants for failure to prosecute.

A copy of Mag. Judge Thalken's order is available at
http://is.gd/RWRPhBfrom Leagle.com.

David Buckley, on behalf of himself, collectively on behalf of
themselves and all others similary situated on behalf of Robert L.
Mckissick Irrevocable Trust on behalf of Brenda L. Buckley
Revocable Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Gaba --
davegaba@compasslegal.com -- COMPASS LAW GROUP, David A. Yudelson
-- david.yudelson@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM,
Gregory C. Scaglione -- greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY,
JESSEN LAW FIRM, J.Daniel Weidner --
daniel.weidner@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM & John L.
Spray -- JLS@mattsonricketts.com -- MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

Rex Weldon, collectively on behalf of themselves and all others
similary situated on behalf of Nancy Weldon on behalf of Robert
Clark Weldon on behalf of Robert Clark Weldon and Nancy Weldon
Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Gaba, COMPASS LAW GROUP,
David A. Yudelson, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, Gregory C. Scaglione,
KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, J.Daniel Weidner, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM &
John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

Jill Schuneman, on behalf of herself and collectively on behalf of
themselves and all others similary situated on behalf of Jill
Schuneman Living Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Gaba,
COMPASS LAW GROUP, David A. Yudelson, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM,
Gregory C. Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, J.Daniel Weidner,
KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW
FIRM.

Lyle Brehm, collectively on behalf of themselves and all others
similary situated on behalf of Willard F. Brehm on behalf of
Gladys M. Brehm on behalf of Willard F. Brehm Revocable Trust on
behalf of Gladys M. Brehm Revocable Trust, Plaintiff, represented
by David A. Yudelson, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, Gregory C.
Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, J.Daniel Weidner, KOLEY, JESSEN
LAW FIRM & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

Rebecca Engle, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Karnas --
karnas@bellovinkarnas.com -- BELLOVIN, KARNAS LAW FIRM.

Brian Schuster, Defendant, Pro Se.

Gerald Parker, Defendant, Pro Se.

Liana Dobarganes Harrington, in her capacity as sole heir or
putative personal representative of the estate of Patrick
Harrington, deceased, Defendant, Pro Se.

Bonnie Post, Movant, represented by David M. Gaba, COMPASS LAW
GROUP & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

William Sheldon, Movant, represented by David M. Gaba, COMPASS LAW
GROUP & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.


APPLE INC: Misrepresents Old iPhone 4G Capabilities, "Jones" Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a recent
class action lawsuit alleges Apple misrepresented the network
capabilities of its older iPhones.

Patrick Jones and Kyle Stirnaman allege in their lawsuit, filed on
March 6, that Apple didn't switch over the iPhone 4 from a 3G
network even though the company said it did.

The lawsuit alleges that Apple's iOS 5.1 operating system
continued to display that the iPhone 4 was on the 3G cellular
network, but advertised that the iPhone 4S was 4G technology, even
though the phone doesn't comply with 4G telecommunication
standards and isn't a 4G phone.

The suit alleges Apple violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practice Act by misrepresenting the iPhone 4S
as a 4G phone.  The "G" is the generation of cell phone technology
used by phones.  The standards are set by the International
Telecommunications Union, which is a specialized agency of the
United Nations.

The plaintiffs are seeking class status for the lawsuit, which
asks for $5 million in damages, plus court costs.  The duo are
represented by Christian Montroy of Montroy Law Offices, LLC, in
East St. Louis, Ill.

United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois-Eastern Division case number 3:15-cv-00249.


APPLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Class Suit Over Data Mining
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple and 14 app developers -- including giants like Yelp,
Twitter, Instagram and "Angry Birds" maker Rovio -- must face the
majority of a class' claims that they swiped and shared data from
iPhones and iPads without users' knowledge or consent, reports
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling entered on the fourth week of March.

The ruling comes three years into a consolidated class action
initially against social networking app Path Inc.  IPhone user
Oscar Hernandez claimed in 2012 federal class action that Path
gleaned sensitive data about the location and contact information
of its users, minor children included, and stored such information
so insecurely that it could be accessed by "even an
unsophisticated hacker."

A federal judge in San Francisco gutted large portions of that
action for lack of evidence that Path had intercepted users'
communications, a requisite for the Federal Wiretap Act.  After
the U.S. government found that Path had violated Federal Trade
Commission rules by mining and storing data from minors, however,
the parties settled with promises from Path to delete collected
data and beef up its privacy policy.

But after reports surfaced that other app developers -- including
Twitter, Yelp, Instagram, Rovio and Electronic Arts -- deploy a
"friend-finder" function to rifle through users' iPhones and
iPads, looking to make connections, disgruntled users filed a
massive consolidated complaint in Texas.

The case eventually made its way to U.S. District Judge Jon
Tigar's courtroom in California.  This past May, Tigar dismissed
the bulk of the case by finding that the plaintiffs' complaint
lacked detail as to when, where and how they'd been duped by
Apple's allegedly false promises of its iDevices' safety and
security.

But he also found that although plaintiffs had voluntarily
installed and used the offending apps, they had an expectation of
privacy regarding their address books and that a jury should
decide whether their acceptance of the apps' terms of use
constituted valid consent to rifle through their contacts.

The class filed an amended complaint, alleging conversion and
invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) against all
defendants.  They also claim Apple violated California's false
advertising, consumer and unfair business practices laws -- and
demand that Apple stop its illegal practices.

In a 34-page ruling issued March 23, Tigar struck down the
conversion claim, finding again that the class hadn't shown any
actual injury since address books have no inherent commercial
value to them.  He also found an injunction against Apple
pointless, since plaintiffs hadn't shown any incidents of
unwarranted intrusions of their iDevices in the last two years --
after the company remedied alleged gaps in its privacy protection.

But the tech giant will have to face up to the fact that its long-
touted promises of safety and security may have duped consumers
into buying iPhones and iPads in the first place, Tigar said.

"The court finds that plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the
individual named plaintiffs saw or heard Apple's advertising
campaign.  Each set of allegations specific to individual
plaintiffs alleges, among other things, that he or she viewed,
heard, or read Apple's advertisements, or statements in news
reports, articles, blogs, and/or statements by Apple's former CEO,
Stephen Jobs; attended Apple conferences, presentations or
product-release events; and/or received emails or other
communications from Apple touting its devices' security and/or its
respect for its customers' privacy," Tigar wrote.

"These allegations significantly improve upon the single and bare
allegation that plaintiffs 'viewed Apple's website, saw in-store
advertisements, and/or were aware of Apple's representations
regarding the safety and security of the iDevices prior to
purchasing their own iDevices,'" he continued, citing the second
amended complaint.  "The pleading stage is not summary judgment;
to the extent that allegations regarding individual plaintiffs'
exposure to Apple's advertising campaign are sparse, they can be
tested after discovery allows the parties further factual
development."

Tigar also found that -- at this point -- the class also
adequately alleged that Apple knew its products had "an inherent
defect that permitted apps to access users' address book data" and
may have hidden at least some of the facts from consumers.

The app developers didn't get off unscathed, either.  Although
Tigar dismissed the conversion claim, he found once again that
users had an expectation of privacy with regard to their address
books -- even if they had actively used the friend-finder
function.

"The court does not find it implausible that, while app users were
aware that 'Find Friends'-type features would scan the address
book information stored on their iDevices for the sole purpose of
finding friends, they were not aware that those features and the
apps with which they were associated used their address book
information in other, unauthorized ways," he wrote.

He added: "To the extent that apps used plaintiffs' information
for something other than purely 'Finding Friends,' plaintiffs
retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information."

Defendants have 14 days to answer the amended complaint, with
pretrial discovery following.

The class is represented by the firm Phillips, Erlewine, Given &
Carlin in San Francisco.

The case is Marc Opperman, et al. v. Path, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-cv-00453-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


ARAB ELECTRIC: Cooperative Members File $32MM Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Whisenant, writing for The Arab Tribune, reports that
Arab Electric Cooperative is part of a class-action lawsuit
brought by co-op members all over the state, including an Arab
man.

The suits claim that co-ops have not refunded profits back to its
members as required by state law.  The class-action suit is
currently in United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, but plaintiffs' attorneys are trying to get
it moved back to local courts.

Herman Kritner of Arab filed suit in Marshall County Circuit Court
in January.  That case was moved by the Arab Electric Cooperative
to the federal court.  Mr. Kritner, through his attorney, has
asked that it be moved back to circuit court.  The suit claims
Arab Electric Cooperative owes about $32 million to its members,
said attorney Parker Yates of Birmingham.  Regarding profits, co-
ops have little options, including prorated refunds, rate
reductions or a combination.

"All Alabama electric cooperatives have certain things they have
to do with income," Mr. Yates said.  "Once they account for
everything they are supposed to pay, they are supposed to disperse
anything left to its members."


ARIZONA: Corrections Dept. Gets $12MM for Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Grado, writing for Arizona Capitol Times, reports that the
Arizona Department of Corrections will have an extra $12 million
during the next fiscal year to meet requirements of a far-reaching
agreement to settle a class-action suit brought by the state's
nearly 34,000 prisoners.  The department began taking steps to
comply a year ago.


ATLANTIC POWER: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation on March 16 disclosed that the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts has granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
securities class action suit originally filed on March 15, 2013
against Atlantic Power and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  In addition, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint as futile.  "We are
very pleased with the court's decision," said James Moore,
President and CEO of Atlantic Power.  Plaintiffs will have 30 days
to file an appeal after the District Court enters a final
judgment.  The Company will continue to vigorously defend against
the proposed Canadian class proceeding.

                      About Atlantic Power

Atlantic Power -- http://www.atlanticpower.com-- owns and
operates a diverse fleet of power generation assets in the United
States and Canada.  Atlantic Power's power generation projects
sell electricity to utilities and other large commercial customers
largely under long-term power purchase agreements, which seek to
minimize exposure to changes in commodity prices.  Its power
generation projects have an aggregate gross electric generation
capacity of approximately 2,945 MW in which its aggregate
ownership interest is approximately 2,024 MW.  Its current
portfolio consists of interests in twenty-eight operational power
generation projects across eleven states in the United States and
two provinces in Canada.  Atlantic Power trades on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol AT and on the Toronto Stock
Exchange under the symbol ATP.


AUTOMATED DATA: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Silfee" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge A. Richard Caputo of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion in the case JOSHUA SILFEE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING, INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 3: CV-15-23 (M.D. Pa.)

The defendant Automated Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) is a provider
of business processing and cloud-based solutions, including
payroll, talent management, human resource management, benefits
administration, and time and attendance, to employers and
automotive dealerships around the world. As part of its payroll
products and services offered to clients, ADP provides employers
the option of paying their employees through a paycard system,
known as TotalPay or ALINE. This paycard system is issued and
administered by ADP, and each employee is provided with a VISA
brand paycard that is loaded each pay period with the employee's
net earnings.

The plaintiff Joshua Silfee was employed by ERG Staffing Service,
LLC. ERG contracted ADP for the provision of various payroll
services including the use of the TotalPay paycard system.
Employees such as plaintiff, who are paid wages through the
paycard are charged an enrollment fee, account maintenance fees,
ATM withdrawal fees, balance inquiry fees, point of sale purchase
fees, and an account closure fee. These fees were deducted by ADP
from the balance of funds loaded onto employees' TotalPay
paycards.

Silfee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
commenced an action against ADP in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania but the same was
subsequently transferred to this Court by agreement of the
parties. In his complaint, Silfee alleges that ADP violated the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), 43 P.S.
Section 260.1 et seq., as a result of the fees associated with the
use of the TotalPay paycard system. ADP filed a motion to dismiss
or to compel arbitration.

Judge Caputo granted defendant's motion to dismiss but gave
plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Caputo's memorandum dated March 12, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/fYovitfrom Leagle.com.

Joshua Silfee, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- at Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Defendant, represented by James
S. Urban -- jsurban@jonesday.com --at Jones Day; Joseph Kernen --
joseph.kernen@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP (US); John G. Dean
-- jgd@elliottgreenleaf.com -- Patrick R. Casey --
prc@elliottgreenleaf.com -- at Elliott Greenleaf & Dean


AXA EQUITABLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Shadow Insurance Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin W. Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02585 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
engaged in various shadow insurance transactions in connection
with its life insurance business, which were not reported on its
mandatory statutory annual statement and not properly disclosed to
its principal regulator, to its credit rating agencies, or to its
customers.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company
with its principal place of business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith W. Miller, Esq.
     PERKINS COlE LLP
     30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
     New York, NY 10112
     Telephone: (212) 262-6900
     Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
     E-mail: KeithMiller@perkinscoie.com

        - and -

     John S. Skilton, Esq.
     David J. Harth, Esq.
     Timothy W. Burns, Esq.
     Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
     Eric G. Barber, Esq.
     Freya K. Bowen, Esq.
     Jesse J. Bair, Esq.
     PERKINS COlE 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
             JBowcn@perkinscoie.com
             EBarber@perkinscoie.com
             FBowen@perkinscoie.com
             JBair@pcrkinscoic.com

         - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING LLP
      30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6518
      E-mail: sraitcr@larsonking.com


BERKELEY CONTRACT: July 15 Fairness Hearing Set in "Freeman" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David R. Herndon granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in ANDREA FREEMAN, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
BERKELEY CONTRACT PKG, LLC, et al, Defendants, NO. 3:12-CV-01255-
DRH, (S.D. Ill.) in an order entered March 27, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/ys0wUEfrom Leagle.com.

The settlement includes two settlement classes: (1) The FLSA Class
and (2) the IWPCA Class (collectively, "Settlement Class).

The FLSA Class includes 113 persons and is defined as:  All
current and former employees of Berkeley Contract Packaging, LLC,
and/or The R.E.M. Group, Inc., who were employed as line workers
at the Berkeley plants located at either 5628 Inner Park Drive,
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 or 22 Gateway Commerce Center Drive,
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 at any time from Jul 9, 2011 to the
present and who: (a) worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a
single workweek; and (b) previously submitted a Consent Form
opting-in to be a class member for the FLSA Claims, as set forth
in Exhibits 1 and 2 to Doc. 109 filed in the Lawsuit.

The IWPCA Class includes approximately 1,000 persons and is
defined as: All current and former employees of Berkeley Contract
Packaging, LLC, and/or The R.E.M. Group, Inc., who were employed
as line workers at the Berkeley plant located at either 5628 Inner
Park Drive, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 or 22 Gateway Commerce
Center Drive, Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 at any time from
September 11, 2008 to the present. Excluded from the IWPCA Class
are: (1) all judges to whom this case is assigned; and (2) any
current officer or director of Berkeley and/or The R.E.M. Group.

The FLSA Class and the IWPCA Class are certified for settlement
purposes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The Court finds that
these classes meet the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3) requirements.

Class members have until Monday, May 25, 2015 to enter appearances
(either personally or through counsel), to request exclusion from
the case, or to object to the settlement.

The named Plaintiffs will serve as representatives for the
certified Illinois Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class; Growe Eisen Karlen
and Evans Blasi will serve as Class Counsel for both classes.

The case is set for a fairness hearing on July 15, 2015, at 1:30
pm in the East St. Louis Courthouse before Judge David R. Herndon.

Andrea Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Eric W. Evans --
eevans@evansblasilaw.com -- Evans Blasi LLC & Jason Andrew
Charpentier -- jason@groweeisen.com -- Growe Eisen Karlen.

Angela Vasques, Plaintiff, represented by Eric W. Evans, Evans
Blasi LLC & Jason Andrew Charpentier, Growe Eisen Karlen.

Jessica Barron, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Andrew
Charpentier, Growe Eisen Karlen.

Kenneth Wylie, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Andrew Charpentier,
Growe Eisen Karlen.

The R.E.M. Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd William
Sivia, Sivia Business & Legal Services, P.C.

Berkeley Contract Packaging, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas
P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller et al. & Kevin
P. Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller et al.


BRINK'S GLOBAL: Sued in California Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Brink's stiffs its drivers
for overtime, a class action claims in California Superior Court.


BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Judge Dismisses 24,000 Red-Light Camera Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ballou, writing for South Florida Sun-Sentinel, reports that
two Broward County traffic judges dismissed 24,000 pending red-
light camera ticket cases on March 16, ruling that the program
violates Florida law.

Fines from those citations, which came from nearly every city in
the county, would have amounted to more than $6.3 million, with
each ticket at $264.

"We made the argument that the program was an improper delegation
of police power because the videos were being sent out of state
for employees of American Traffic Solutions to do the screening,"
said Ted Hollander, an attorney with Ticket Clinic.  He said the
firm has challenged the program for more than four years on behalf
of clients.

American Traffic Solutions, a vendor based in Arizona, reviewed
videos captured by traffic cameras in Broward County before
forwarding them to local police for ticketing.  State law mandates
that only law enforcement can issue violations.

"You can't enforce one law and break another, which is what these
cities have been doing for the better part of four years now."
Mr. Hollander said.

Other cities around South Florida have ended red-light camera
programs.  Boca Raton stopped its program in February, joining
other municipalities like Palm Beach County, Margate, Hallandale
Beach and Coral Springs, which have put a stop to red-light camera
tickets.

Fort Lauderdale suspended its red light traffic program on
March 6, after a Broward traffic court ruled that it violated the
statute.  The City Commission is expected to discuss the matter at
its regular meeting on March 17.  Mayor Jack Seiler declined to
comment on the case, saying he didn't have enough information on
the latest ruling.

Hearings are scheduled for cases in Aventura on March 30 and in
Boynton Beach on April 1 and in Polk County on May 28th.
Mr. Hollander said a class-action lawsuit has also been filed in
federal court in Miami seeking to recoup fines for clients who
have paid tickets since the inception of the program four years
ago.

In February, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in West Palm
Beach declined an appeal by Hollywood over an October ruling that
the city could not delegate ticket writing to American Traffic
Solutions.  Since that ruling, Hollywood has stopped issuing
tickets but it continues to operate 18 red-light cameras . The
city is evaluating how to best modify the program to align it with
state law, and could revisit any violations captured by the
cameras.

"Our city attorney has indicated that changes could be made
quickly," said Raelin Storey, spokeswoman for Hollywood.


CALIFORNIA: Two School Districts to Settle PE Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Nyczepir, writing for The Desert Sun, reports that two desert
school districts are poised to settle a class-action lawsuit over
inadequate physical education.

Under the deal, Palm Springs Unified and Desert Sands Unified
school districts each agreed to pay about $30,000.  They also will
impose stringent reporting requirements on elementary teachers,
who must tediously document how their students get 200 physical
education minutes every 10 days, as mandated by state law.

They were among 37 California school districts being sued by
Cal200, a group that has said it intends to "raise awareness" for
physical education but previously had no public presence as an
advocacy group.

"Teachers have always been responsible for the 200 minutes every
10 days, regardless of whether they're hired as separate teachers
or not," said Tony Knapp, Palm Springs Unified director of
elementary curriculum and instruction.

"I feel like we've always been doing it. But the question is 'have
we been documenting it?' So now we're being careful."

But Mark Acker, president of the Palm Springs Teacher's
Association, said it was "a pretty easy lawsuit because we weren't
meeting the minutes" as mandated by the state.

"The school district should be providing high-quality PE
instruction delivered by PE specialists," Mr. Acker said.  "The
plan to have teachers fill out time cards is adding to an already
overworked group of people."

The teacher's union and school district are currently in
negotiations, and Mr. Acker suggested the district needs to hire
eight to 13 additional teachers.

Twelve PE teachers in the district's 15 regular elementary
schools, and another two at its charter school, cover 40 to 80
minutes of PE a week, Mr. Acker said.  While teachers in the lower
grades are expected to make up the difference, he said some don't
because of the emphasis put on improving test scores.

Cal200's lawsuit claimed districts throughout the state --
including the nation's second-largest, Los Angeles Unified --
violated the state's PE mandate for younger students by failing to
adopt a course for delivering required minutes, excluding lunch
and recess.

Settlements with all the districts were reached by January.  The
court will review the settlements on March 20, but Donald
Driscoll, Cal200's attorney, believes they'll be approved.

"Everybody's on board, and it's a great settlement for the kids,"
he said.  "We think it's a great step forward and represents a lot
more PE for 558,000 school kids in California. That's almost a
billion minutes we're talking about."

The settlement stipulates that both districts:

   -- Have teachers in first through fifth grades create PE
schedules showing days, times and durations of scheduled
instruction;

   -- Post the PE schedules in the school office, website or
classroom;

   -- Make teachers fill out a standardized reporting forms, and
retain them for three years;

   -- Ensure teachers report PE minutes to on-site administrators,
with the reports sent to the school boards and the court;

   -- Conduct unannounced visits to classrooms to ensure
compliance;

   -- Provide annual notices to parents and guardians.

Palm Springs Unified already started the process, Knapp said, and
teachers have the reporting forms in hand.

Desert Sands Unified asked teachers in first through fifth grades
to complete, sign and submit an online form every 10 days.

"That's kind of been the story: See how much paperwork we can give
teachers to do," said Mona Davidson, president of the Desert Sands
Teachers' Association.

"But our teachers always do what they have to do to give students
the best they can possibly give them.  If this is what we have to
do, we'll figure out a way to do it."

Students are getting enough PE minutes, Ms. Davidson said, but
documentation has been a problem.

The district has a PE teacher in every elementary school, and
teachers have prep time during which to complete forms, said
Melinda Wallace, Desert Sands' director of state and federal
programs.

"If PE teachers don't, the classroom teachers provide the balance
of PE minutes," she said.  "We all know physical exercise benefits
student learning."


CALVIN KLEIN: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis A. Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Calvin Klein, Inc., and PVH Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-02590 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015), seeks to put an end on
the Defendant's practice of procuring background checks on
employees and job applicants without first providing accurate
disclosures and obtaining a valid authorization.

Calvin Klein, Inc. owns and operates a fashion company
headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.

PVH Corporation is the parent of over 33 American subsidiary
branded lifestyle apparel brands and companies, and has a
principal place of business at 24 North Wantagh Avenue, Levittown,
NY 11756.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam G. Singer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER
      14 S. Main Street, Suites 4 & 5
      New City, NY 10956
      Telephone: (212) 842-2428
      Facsimile: (209) 844-2428
      E-mail: asinger2@alumni.law.upenn.edu

         - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, 19th Floor
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
      E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
              jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


CANADA: VA Minister Addresses Afghan Veterans' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Huffington Post reports that Canada's Veterans Affairs
Minister Erin O'Toole earned some praise from former soldiers
after he rolled out a batch of promises, as the Conservatives try
to address veterans' complaints.

Last fall, then veterans affairs minister Julian Fantino faced
opposition calls for his resignation or firing over his handling
of the veterans portfolio.  The department had faced heated
criticism from veterans over the decision to close regional
offices and for the lack of support for veterans with mental
illness.

In early January, Prime Minister Stephen Harper replaced
Mr. Fantino with Mr. O'Toole and appointed longtime Conservative
John MacDonell, an experienced political hand, as O'Toole's top
adviser.

After less than a month on the job, Mr. O'Toole faced backlash for
some social media activity and over the news that the federal
government spent about $700,000 fighting a class-action lawsuit by
disgruntled, wounded Afghan veterans over the new Veterans
Charter.

Since then, Mr. O'Toole has been outspoken in his desire for
changes.  There have been four key updates:

  -- March 9: Government promises to introduce new financial
assistance for moderately and seriously disabled veterans who are
65 and older.

  -- March 12: O'Toole promises veteran amputees they will no
longer have to verify lost limbs.

  -- March 13: Government takes a time-out from the class-action
lawsuit over the new Veterans Charter in order to seek a possible
settlement.

  -- March 13: O'Toole announces that veteran reservists would
gain access to same benefits as full-time members of the Canadian
Forces.

After months of much-publicized struggles with outspoken veterans,
the actions to mend fences have been unprecedented and swift.

"This is what I promised the veterans community," Mr. O'Toole told
Rosemary Barton on Power & Politics on March 13.

Those promises have made a positive impression with veterans
ombudsman Guy Parent.

"It seems like the government is moving on some of the issues that
the community at large has been putting forward," Mr. Parent said.

"We work with other advocacy groups to try to send the common
message, and I think finally the government understood that
message and they're moving in the right direction."

Lump-sum payments, allowance remain issues

Some issues still remain after Fantino's departure, including the
disability award system.

One of the most controversial changes in the new Veterans Charter,
introduced in 2006, was the replacement of lifetime pensions for
injuries with a system of lump-sum payments.  That remains the
biggest sticking point for many veterans.

"Unfortunately [the new Veterans Charter] was on life-support for
many years.  I think we're now breathing some life into it," Mr.
Parent said.

The ombudsman also found last year that nearly half of the most
severely disabled ex-soldiers are not receiving the permanent
impairment allowance, while those who do only get the lowest grade
of the benefit.

Wounded soldiers forced to take lower-paying jobs or unable to
work at all are eligible for the allowance.

Vets still see Conservatives as 'callous,' Liberal MP says

Mark Campbell, a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit over the
new Veterans Charter, said he has become hopeful since Mr. O'Toole
took over, but he preached cautious optimism.

As for Liberal MP Geoff Regan, he argued veterans' needs go beyond
the recent slew of announcements.

"The veterans that I've talked to are still very frustrated with
the attitude of this government that seems to be very callous,"
Mr. Regan said.

"From what I hear, most veterans don't think this government is
very sincere."

Outspoken critic Mike Blais, who founded the Canadian Veterans
Advocacy group, said he hopes O'Toole isn't introducing headlines
"without substance."

As the budget and election loom, you can expect more headlines
from Mr. O'Toole and more criticism from veterans on their
substance.


CHANG GUANN: Consumers' Foundation to File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Yang Su-min, Chen Cheng-wei and Evelyn Kao, writing for Focus
Taiwan News Channel, reports that the Consumers' Foundation
announced on March 16 that it will file a class action on behalf
of consumers in mid-April against four producers of allegedly
tainted edible oils and ask for compensation of more than NT$30
million (US$947,204).

The four -- Chang Guann Co., Ting Hsin Oil and Fat Industrial Co.,
Cheng I Food Co. and Beei Hae Oil and Fats Co. -- have been
accused of using ingredients not fit for human consumption, such
as oils used in animal feed and oils extracted from restaurant
waste, in their products.

Their products have affected more than 500 smaller food companies
and stores and more than 1,000 kinds of food items, Foundation
Vice Chairman Yu Kai-hsiung said at the end of November.

News of the potentially tainted oils surfaced in September and
October last year, and the foundation was later authorized by the
Executive Yuan's Consumer Protection Committee to file suit
against the four cooking oil suppliers on behalf of consumers.

As of March 12, 761 consumers had agreed to allow the foundation
to claim damages from these companies on their behalf. It
estimated that the plaintiffs will demand more than NT$30 million
in compensation.


CHELSEA REST: Faces "Atlatenco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Atlatenco and Jorge Ortega, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Chelsea Rest. Inc., d/b/a New Venus
Diner and d/b/a Fork Bar and Grill, and Antonio Socratous, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02595 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Chelsea Rest. Inc. owns and operates Fork Bar and Grill restaurant
located at 252 8th Avenue, in Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
     JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
     233 Broadway, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
     Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
     E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: 4th Cir. Revives Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for Law360, reports that the Fourth Circuit
dismantled a North Carolina federal court's ruling that dismissed
allegations of misleading investors against Chelsea Therapeutics
International Ltd. in a split decision on March 16, saying that
the court not only inappropriately relied on regulatory filings to
reach its decision, but that it also misinterpreted those
documents.

The circuit court's decision hinged in part on the lower court's
characterization of U.S. Securities and Exchange filings showing
company officers' stock purchases and holdings, which the higher
court said provided an incomplete picture of whether corporate
officers were selling off stocks in anticipation of a dip in share
prices, according to its written opinion.

Further, the circuit court reversed the lower court's decision
that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pled scienter in their
allegations, saying that Chelsea Therapeutics chose not to
disclose material information from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration over the company's new drug application.  The
Fourth Circuit's decision remanded the case for further
proceedings.

"Instead of considering the information in the light most
favorable to the plaintiffs, the court found that the documents
established the 'fact that none of the individual defendants' sold
stock during the class period," the opinion said.  "Notably,
however, the referenced SEC documents fail to establish any such
fact."

Plaintiffs, who purchased Chelsea Therapeutics stocks between
November 2008 and March 2012, alleged that the company misled
investors over the risk of its new drug application for its
proposed blood pressure medication Northera and concealed that it
was supported only by a single, one-week study, which provided
little evidence of an important component needed to prove
long-term success and win approval.

Defendants had relied on the purported showing, based on the SEC
filings, that company officers had not sold any Chelsea
Therapeutics stocks during the class period, which they said
undermined any inference of scienter, according to the opinion.

In its decision, the lower court reported that the perceived lack
of stock sales "'tip[ped] the scales in favor of defendant[s']
motion' to dismiss, rendering the plaintiffs' allegations
insufficient as a matter of law to establish" scienter, the
opinion said.

The Fourth Circuit emphasized that the plaintiffs' securities
fraud claims did not include allegations of stock sales, therefore
rendering the documents inappropriate for review.  The circuit
court added further the filings fail to show a complete picture of
whether stocks were sold at any given point during the class
period, providing only a snapshot which could not reasonably be
relied upon.

The plaintiffs' allegations of scienter relied on the company's
failure to disclose that the FDA expected it to produce two
successful studies showing long-term effect, and that the company
issued a February 2012 press release that did not include that
information.  The Fourth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs in that
regard, but one of the judges dissented in her opinion on the
matter.

Fourth Circuit Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote in her dissent
that the high court has neglected in recent years to note that the
"recklessness necessary to support a finding of scienter must be
'severe'" and said that understanding scienter necessitates a
"culpable state of mind" is elemental to rule 10(b) as it applies
to securities fraud.

"It ensures that corporations and their officers cannot escape
liability through willful blindness -- that is, purposeful
ignorance of the truth of their own representations -- while, at
the same time, it prevents section 10(b) from devolving into a
penalty for business decisions that, in hindsight, appear
questionable," Judge Thacker said.

Plaintiffs were represented by Richard W. Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

Chelsea Therapeutics and individual defendants were represented by
Barry M. Kaplan, Ignacio E. Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com --
Cheryl W. Foung -- cfoung@wsgr.com -- and Gregory L. Watts of
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC and Tobias Samuel Hampson and
Lee Michael Whitman -- lwhitman@wyrick.com -- of Wyrick Robbins
Yates & Ponton LLP.

The case is Roman Zak v. Chelsea Therapeutics Int., case number
13-2370, in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gas Drilling Settlement Won't Halt Other Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan, writing for The Citizens' Voice, reports that the
proposed $11 million settlement of a class action lawsuit
involving payments to natural gas leaseholders will not impact the
viability of two pending lawsuits that raise some similar claims,
attorneys representing the plaintiffs said.

Thomas McNamara, attorney for plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in
February by the A&B Campbell Family LLC Trust, and Robert Schaub,
attorney for leaseholders represented in a suit filed in June 2014
by the Suessenbach Family Limited Partnership, said their lawsuits
will continue regardless of the outcome of the proposed settlement
between Cheseapeake Applachia and Demchak Partners.

Attorneys for Demchak Partners filed a motion in December asking a
federal judge to approve a revised settlement that would resolve a
dispute with leaseholders who have "market enhancement" clauses in
their leases -- a provision Chesapeake contends allows it to
deduct from leaseholders royalty payments any post production
costs associated with gas extracted through Marcellus Shale
drilling.

The settlement revises a deal reached in August 2013, that would
have paid leaseholders $7.5 million.  The new agreement increases
the payment to $11 million and includes other financial benefits
over the initial deal.  It is now before U.S. District Judge
Malachy Mannion, who must decide whether or not to approve it.  If
it is approved, all Pennsylvania leaseholders who have market
enhancement clauses would be subject to its terms unless they opt
out of the settlement.

Mr. Schaub said he does not believe the Demchak settlement, as it
now stands, will impact the Suessenbach case because none of this
clients have market enhancement clauses.

Mr. McNamara said some of his clients do have that clause and
would be impacted.  He said he has concerns with the proposed
settlement and has advised his clients to review it closely to
decide if they should accept the terms or opt out.

Even if his clients with the market enhancement clauses agree to
the Demchak settlement, the Campbell lawsuit would still continue
because it contains other claims, including racketeering counts,
against Chesapeake and affiliated companies.  The Suessenbach case
also contains additional counts and defendants, Mr. Schaub said.


CITY SIGHTS: Settles Class Action Over Twin America Joint Venture
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma G. Fitzsimmons, writing for The New York Times, reports that
two of New York City's biggest tour bus operators have agreed to
pay $7.5 million and give up nearly 50 of their stops in Manhattan
to settle an antitrust lawsuit brought by state and federal
officials.

The proposed settlement, announced on March 16 by the Justice
Department and the New York attorney general, could reshape an
industry that officials said the two companies, City Sights and
Gray Line New York, effectively monopolized after forming a joint
venture called Twin America.

The companies' double-decker buses can seem ubiquitous in many
parts of Manhattan, and for many visitors, a ride on one is a
requisite part of the tourist experience.  In the lawsuit, filed
in 2012, state and federal officials said City Sights and Gray
Line New York, operated by Coach USA, created Twin America to
eliminate competition and allow them to push up prices.

As part of the agreement with officials, Twin America must give up
nearly 50 stops in Manhattan, creating slots for other tour bus
companies to stop near popular tourist destinations, including
Times Square and the Empire State Building.  The companies also
agreed to pay $7.5 million in profits they made from operating
together.  The money will be split between the state and federal
governments.

"This settlement allows competition to thrive once again, and
ensures that these companies did not profit from operating an
unlawful and anticompetitive joint venture," Attorney General
Eric T. Schneiderman said in a statement.

The companies formed Twin America in 2009 and then raised prices
by about 10 percent, according to the suit.  In the past few
years, other tour bus companies have not been able to obtain bus
stop authorizations near major attractions from the city's
Transportation Department because City Sights and Gray Line New
York had locked up the best locations, the Justice Department
said.

Many riders probably did not realize that Gray Line's red and
white buses and City Sights' blue and yellow buses, with their
teams of aggressive salespeople on the streets, were run by the
same venture.

The towering buses have been less popular with local residents,
who have complained that they clog city streets and even infringe
on the privacy of second-floor apartments.

The proposed settlement calls for Twin America to give up City
Sights' bus stop authorizations by May 1.  The agreement must be
approved by the federal court in Manhattan.  The venture will
continue to operate from Gray Line New York's stops, the Justice
Department said.

The associate director of corporate affairs for Coach USA,
Sean Hughes, said in a statement that the company had "engaged
constructively" with state and federal officials regarding the
joint venture.

"We can confirm that Twin America has now filed court papers
jointly with the D.O.J. and N.Y.A.G., and we are pleased at the
continuing progress toward an agreed settlement," he said.

A trial had been scheduled for the lawsuit for Feb. 23, but it was
delayed while the two sides negotiated the settlement.  The
companies settled a class-action lawsuit, related to the
government's suit, on behalf of customers last year for $19
million.

Gray Line New York has provided tours in the city since 1926,
according to its website, and City Sights started in 2005.  At
first, the companies competed with each other, which led to better
prices for customers, the suit said.  But after they established
Twin America, the suit claims, the companies raised base fares by
$5, to $54 from $49.

Twin America and Coach USA, the parent company of Gray Line New
York, must establish antitrust training programs as part of the
settlement.


COCA-COLA: Watchdog Claims Vitaminwater Brand Name Misleading
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Corrado, writing for FOX CT, reports that a Madison-based
advertising watchdog group is trying to change the name of
Vitaminwater, a popular Coca-Cola brand product.  Truth in
Advertising said the product's name is misleading to consumers.

"What it claims to be is a healthy beverage that can help with
your immune system, help with your eye health, keep you healthy,"
said Bonnie Patten, Executive Director of Truth in Advertising.

Ms. Patten said the product's label is misleading, touting its
vitamin content and downplaying the roughly 30 grams of sugar in
every bottle.  "If they wanted to be honest with us and not
deceive us in the labeling, they would have to call this
'Sugarwater,'" said Ms. Patten.

Truth in Advertising is using legal avenues to try and create
change, becoming involved in class-action lawsuits against
Vitaminwater.

Coca-Cola, however, believes its product is fairly labeled. In a
statement, Coca-Cola said, in part:

"Vitaminwater is a great-tasting beverage with essential vitamins
and minerals, and all ingredients are clearly and accurately
stated on the label.  We respect the consuming public and believe
they are fully capable of making their own decisions when all
ingredients and calorie content are clearly stated on the labels.
The fact is that Vitaminwater is a great product that is properly
labeled and responsibly marketed."

The majority of Vitaminwater is comprised of water and cane sugar,
and vitamins account for less than half a percent of the drink.
St. Francis nutritionist Sally Lerman said this is done purposely
to keep people from getting sick from fat-soluble vitamins. "They
want to make sure that if you drink a bunch of them, you're not
going to become ill," said Mr. Lerman.  "Because vitamins, while
they're good in small quantities, are not necessarily always good
in larger quantities."

Mr. Lerman believes the Vitaminwater name is fair because she said
the drink is, essentially, a vitamin in water with sugar.  She
does, however, recommend getting your vitamins from other sources.

"You really want to concentrate your diet on getting your vitamins
from real food -- basically things that don't have a nutrition
facts label on them, like fruits, vegetables, fresh whole grains,"
recommended Mr. Lerman.

Ms. Patten said Truth in Advertising will continue fighting to
change the Vitaminwater name through class-action lawsuits.  None
of the recent class-action lawsuits directly name Connecticut
consumers, but the group is hopeful that if a name change is
adopted, it will apply to consumers nationwide.


COOPER VISION: Faces "Lubin" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Lubin, on behalf of herself 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 (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No. 1:15-
cv-21268 (S.D. Fla., April 2, 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:

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

         - and -

      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Ln, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
      E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
              atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


COOPER VISION: Robins Kaplan Files Suit Over Contact Lens Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noreen Marcus, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
litigation challenging the pricing policies of the nation's
biggest contact lens makers has reached the Southern District of
Florida.

On March 6, Robins Kaplan, a Minneapolis-based civil trial firm
with a Naples office, filed an antitrust lawsuit in Miami federal
district court against the four manufacturers and the largest
nationwide distributor of contact lenses -- CooperVision, Alcon
Laboratories, Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson and wholesaler ABB
Optical Group.  The lawsuit seeks certification of a nationwide
class action and a jury trial.

The main allegation is that the five companies conspired to
undermine competition by coordinating price floors, causing an
escalation in the price of contact lenses over the past two years.

"As a result of these price floors, the 40 million consumers who
purchase contact lenses each year are precluded from shopping
around for the best-priced lenses," Hollis Salzman --
HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com -- a New York partner at Robins Kaplan,
said in a statement.

Three days before the Florida filing, the San Francisco law firm
Hausfeld brought a similar lawsuit against the same defendants on
behalf of three named plaintiffs.

The filings follow Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearings last
summer into contact lens pricing, along with complaints to the
Federal Trade Commission.


DE BEERS: B.C. Court Certifies Diamond Price-Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan M. Young, Esq. of McMillan LLP in an article for Mondaq,
reports that the British Columbia Supreme Court certified a class
action for a class of indirect purchasers of diamonds in a recent
development in the suit against the De Beers group of diamond
producers.  The case involves allegations of price-fixing and bid-
rigging conspiracies, in what has been characterized as historic
and global proportions.

Background

The class plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to and
benefited from illegally inflating the prices of diamonds, and
that the inflated price was passed on through the various levels
of purchasers, which ultimately caused class members to pay more
for the diamonds than they otherwise would have.  In considering
the key issue of whether the class plaintiff had properly framed
claims against De Beers, the Court contemplated the apparent
inconsistencies between recent cases from the B.C. Court of Appeal
and the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with torts of unlawful
means and unlawful means conspiracy, with "unlawful means"
predicated on breaches of the Competition Act.

On the one hand, in Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, the B.C.
Court of Appeal held that the Competition Act is an exhaustive
code such that breaches of the statute cannot form the basis for
claims in equity.  The Court of Appeal also suggested that such
breaches would be incapable of supporting claims based in tort.
The B.C. Supreme Court followed the Wakelam decision in Watson v.
Bank of America Corporation, holding that it was plain and obvious
that claims under the Competition Act cannot constitute the
foundation for other causes of action.  Watson is presently under
appeal.

On the other hand, the decisions in Wakelam and Watson seemed to
be in conflict with the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in
Pro-Sys Consultation Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation and A.I.
Enterprises v. Bram.  In Microsoft, the Supreme Court of Canada
certified claims for restitution even though, like Fairhurst,
these claims were predicated on breaches of the Competition Act.
In Bram, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the type of wrong
that could find a claim for tort of unlawful means, noting that
while criminal offences and statutory breach would not typically
be actionable under unlawful means tort, the tort would be
available "if, under common law principles, those acts also give
rise to a civil action by the third party and interfered with the
plaintiff's economic activities".  Bram was released only one day
after Wakelam.

Decision

The Court considered that in light of the apparent inconsistencies
between these decisions, it was bound by the higher authority of
the Supreme Court of Canada.  As such, the Court held that while
claims for restitution, to the extent that they are based on
breaches of the Competition Act, were not viable, it was not plain
and obvious that other tort claims based on these breaches were
bound to fail.  The Court further found that limitations arguments
advanced by De Beers were premature, and a lack of specificity in
the pleadings would not be fatal at the certification stage.  Such
questions were best left to trial.

On the question of whether the claims of the class members raise
common issues, the test as set out in Microsoft required the
plaintiff to show that the standard of proof has "some basis in
fact."  The Court here held that factual evidence required at this
stage need only go towards establishing whether there are common
questions between all class members.  The standard of proof is a
lower threshold than the balance of probability.  The plaintiff
need only show a "credible or plausible methodology", and the
Court at this stage is not required to engage in a weighing of
conflicting expert evidence.

Conclusion

The debate over whether class action claims using the Competition
Act as the foundation for other causes of action remains at issue
in British Columbia.  The Fairhurst decision has been appealed,
but likely the legal issue will be determined before that appeal
is heard, as the British Columbia Court of Appeal is expected to
render its decision on the appeal in Watson in 2015 where this
issue will be addressed head on.  Whether another trip to the
Supreme Court of Canada on this issue will be required to sort out
the law in British Columbia remains to be seen.


DIET DRUGS: Herman and Hirschbein Lose 3rd Cir. Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane R. Roth of the United States Court of Appeals, Third
District affirmed the district court's order in the appealed case
entitled IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/
DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. RANDALL D. HERMAN;
RAYNA HERMAN, Appellants in 14-1337. MICHAEL HIRSCHBEIN; SANDRA
HIRSCHBEIN, Appellants in 14-1502, NOS. 14-1337-14-1502 (3d Cir.)

The claimants Randall Herman and Michael Hirschbein are members of
the certified settlement class who seek benefits under the
Settlement Agreement. In 2011, Herman and Hirschbein submitted
claims for Matrix A, Level III benefits under the Settlement
Agreement. The AHP Settlement Trust then submitted both claims for
audit. The Trust subsequently denied Herman's claim and limited
Hirschbein's claim to Matrix B benefits. Specifically, the Trust
credited the findings of the auditing cardiologists, who
determined there was no reasonable basis for Herman's treating
physician's representation that he had mild aortic regurgitation
or Hirschbein's treating physician's representation that he did
not have aortic stenosis. Herman and Hirschbein both contested the
Trust's post-audit determinations but the Trust affirmed its
decisions.

Both claimants again disputed the Trust's findings and the Trust
applied to the District Court to require them to show cause why
their claims should be paid. The District Court referred the
matters to the Special Master, who appointed a Technical Advisor
to prepare an independent report. Like the auditing cardiologists,
the Technical Advisor concluded that there was no reasonable basis
for the representation that Herman had mild aortic regurgitation
or that Hirschbein did not have aortic stenosis. Crediting the
Technical Advisor and auditing cardiologists' findings, the
District Court determined that both claimants failed to meet their
burden of establishing a reasonable medical basis for their
claims. Thus, the District Court affirmed the denial of Herman and
Hirschbein's claims for Matrix A, Level III benefits. Claimants
appealed.

Judge Roth affirmed the district court's order.  A copy of Judge
Roth's opinion dated February 20, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/dIDxO7from Leagle.com

The Third Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Jane R. Roth,
D. Brooks Smith and Patty Shwartz


DINING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Vicario' Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Vicario, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Dining Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Brunch Caf‚ and
Andrew Zatos, Case No. 1:15-cv-02909 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 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 restaurant in Dupage County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


DUKE ENERGY: Settles Shareholder Suit for Nearly $50 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Emery P. Dalesio, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
America's largest electric company will pay nearly $150 million to
settle claims that shareholders lost millions when it ousted its
CEO in a surprise move after a long-anticipated buyout.

Duke Energy said its insurers and shareholders would pay $146
million -- an "off the charts," number for such a settlement,
according to one expert -- to end the lawsuit filed after the
company's July 2012 buyout of Raleigh, N.C.,-based Progress Energy
Inc.

Duke set aside $26 million for the amount not covered by insurance
and said consumers would not pay the cost.

The company denied the allegations, and it denies any wrongdoing
as part of the settlement, which must be approved by a federal
judge in Charlotte.  Duke Energy spokesman David Scanzoni said the
company had no comment beyond its prepared statement.

The decision to settle was probably driven by insurers who feared
forking out more if the case went to trial, said Alan Palmiter, a
business law professor at Wake Forest University.

For litigation prompted by a merger, "$146 million is off the
charts," said James Cox, a securities law specialist at Duke
University.  "It is probably an indication that the amount of
money that was involved here, if it had gone to trial, would have
been a very significant recovery."

Over the past six years, about nine out of 10 corporate mergers
valued at more than $100 million have been challenged by
shareholder lawsuits, according to an annual report by Cornerstone
Research, which consults with attorneys in complex litigation.
Fewer than 10 percent end up with any payments for shareholders,
the report said.

Few shareholder lawsuits in recent years have seen settlements in
the ballpark of Duke's, though Freeport-McMoRan Inc. settled for
$137 million in January over a pair of 2013 acquisitions.

The lawsuit against Duke said the company violated federal
securities laws by misrepresenting the terms of the buyout to
shareholders.

It claimed shareholders suffered when Duke Directors decided hours
after the merger closed to fire new chief executive Bill Johnson,
who was supposed to head the combined company after holding the
same post at Progress Energy.  Five months later, Johnson became
president and chief executive officer of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, the nation's largest public utility.

Mr. Johnson's ouster was "the most blatant example of corporate
deceit that I have witnessed during a long career on Wall Street,"
John Mullin III, the former lead director of Progress Energy, said
at the time.

Thousands of individual and institutional investors are covered by
the class-action settlement, but exact numbers are not available,
said Scott Zdrazil, first vice president of Amalgamated Bank, one
of the lead plaintiffs in the case.  A unit of the Service
Employees International Union owns a majority of the New York
bank.

Investors covered by the settlement include those who purchased
Duke Energy shares in the three weeks leading up to the merger
closing or in the week after the deal finalized, including former
Progress Energy shareholders who acquired shares in the combined
company after the merger.

North Carolina regulators and the state's attorney general
launched separate investigations into whether the utility misled
officials who approved the merger.  Subsequent hearings into what
led Duke Energy's board to dump Mr. Johnson forced the company to
pay another $30 million for ratepayers and low-income assistance
and dictated the replacement of several other executives and board
members.

Duke Energy has more than 7 million customers in the Carolinas,
Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and Florida.


DYNAMIC ENERGY: "York" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dynamic Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00856
(S.D. Tex., April 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Dynamic Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
offering integrated solids and fluids management services to oil
companies and operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ELITE SHOW: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on March 16 disclosed that on
March 4, 2015 the San Diego employment law attorneys at the law
firm filed a pending class action Complaint against Elite Show
Services, Inc. for allegedly failing to accurately pay their
employees for all time worked.  The lawsuit also alleges that
Elite Show Services, Inc. did not have a policy or practice of
providing their employees with the legally required thirty minute
uninterrupted meal and rest breaks.  The Elite Show Services, Inc.
lawsuit, Case No. 37-2015-00007-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in
San Diego County Superior Court.

The lawsuit filed against Elite Show Services, Inc. claims that
the company failed to compensate their California employees for
all hours worked.  Under the California Labor Code, an employee
who is classified as non-exempt and is paid on an hourly basis is
entitled to reporting time pay when the employee shows up to work
but is sent home before being furnished with less than half their
normal shift.  As a result, the Security Guards employed by Elite
Show Services, Inc. claim they forfeited wages due to them for
reporting to work and then being sent home without the proper
compensation.

The Complaint also alleges that the employees working at Elite
Show Services, Inc. were not always able to take their thirty
minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work.
California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt
employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods
before the employee works five hours. The penalty for failing to
provide adequate meal breaks is one hour of pay under the
California Labor Code.

The lawsuit against Elite Show Services, Inc. additionally claims
that the company required their employees to purchase a headset as
well as a beanie and/or cap but failed to reimburse these
employees for required business expenses incurred as a result of
discharging their job duties for Elite Show Services, Inc.  Under
California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to
indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and
scope of their employment.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Elite Show Services, Inc., please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to
one of the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik or
click here.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm that
has offices in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, and
San Diego.  The firm represents employees in California who have
been wrongfully terminated, denied proper overtime pay, denied
payment of earned commission wages, and also employees who have
been improperly denied their meal and rest breaks.


EMPIRE AUTO: Judge Won't Grant Conditional Cert. in "Reed" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the District of Ney Jersey
denied plaintiff's motion in the case JASON REED, Plaintiff, v.
EMPIRE AUTO PARTS, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-
5220 (RMB/AMD) (D.N.J.)

Jason Reed worked for the defendants Empire Auto Parts, Inc.
(Empire) in Cinnaminson, as a full-time delivery driver from April
2010 until February 2013, when he was terminated after being
involved in an accident while speeding. During his time working
for Empire, Reed was a non-exempt, hourly employee who earned a
base hourly rate between $12.00 and $13.75 per hour.

Reed states that he and other drivers employed at Empire's
Cinnaminson warehouse regularly worked more hours than the 40
hours per week for which they were scheduled to work and that he
rarely, if ever took an uninterrupted, 30-minute meal break.
Empire contends that all drivers were advised to take their lunch
break and that Empire has a procedure through which a driver can
have his paycheck adjusted in the event that the driver fails to
take a lunch break.

Reed files a complaint and contends that Empire violated the FLSA
and New Jersey Wage Laws by failing to pay Reed and other drivers'
overtime. Reed alleged that defendants automatically deducted 30
minutes from each shift worked by class plaintiffs despite not
permitting class plaintiffs to take bona fide meal breaks.
Plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of himself and all
persons presently and formerly employed by Empire as delivery
drivers or in positions with similar duties subject to Empire's
unlawful pay practices and policies and who worked for Empire at
any point in the three years preceding the date the instant action
was initiated.

Plaintiff seeks the court to conditionally certify a collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C
Section 216(b). Reed also moves to have this matter certified as a
class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
for violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A.
34:11-56a et seq. (NJWHL).

Judge Bumb denied plaintiff's motion in its entirety.

A copy of Judge Bumb's opinion dated February 23, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/IOPn1Ffrom Leagle.com.

Matthew Miller, Esq. -- mmiller@swartz-legal.com -- at Swartz
Swidler, LLC, Attorneys for Plaintiff

Richard Hertzberg, Esq. -- rhertzberg@greenbaumlaw.com -- at
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP, Attorneys for Defendant


ESPAR INC: RIC Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over Parking Heaters-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regional International Corp., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Espar Inc. and Espar Products Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01798 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2015), arises out of a
conspiracy between the Defendants and unnamed coconspirators to
fix prices for parking heaters and accessories sold in the
aftermarket for use in commercial vehicles from on or before
October 1, 2007 through at least December 31, 2012.

Espar Inc. is an Illinois corporation headquartered in Novi,
Michigan, which owns and operates Auto Parts stores.

Espar Products Inc. is an affiliate of Espar Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence H. Schoenbach, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE H. SCHOENBACH, PLLC
      The Trinity Building
      111 Broadway, Suite 701
      New York, New York 10006
      Telephone: (212) 346-2400
      Facsimile: (212) 937-3100
      E-mail: schoenbachlawoffice@att.net

         - and -

     Josef D. Cooper, Esq.
     Tracy R. Kirkham, Esq.
     John D. Bogdanov, Esq.
     COOPER & KIRKHAM, P.C.
     357 Tehama Street, Second Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Telephone: (415) 788-3030
     Facsimile: (415) 882-7040
     E-mail: jdc@coopkirk.com
             trk@coopkirk.com
             jdb@coopkirk.com

        - and -

      Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 788-7210
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0706
      E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com

         - and -

       Philip A. Cala, Esq.
       Furniture Mart Office Bldg, Suite 1000
       Jamestown, NY 14701
       Telephone: (716)483-2252
       E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net


ESPAR INC: Raccoon Valley Files Antitrust Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Vehling and Matthew Bultman, writing for Law360, report that
auto parts maker Espar Inc. on March 16 was hit with a proposed
antitrust class action in a New York federal court just days after
it pled guilty to its role in a scheme to fix the prices of
automobile parking heaters.

Iowa-based Raccoon Valley Transport Inc., a buyer of aftermarket
heaters for commercial vehicles, says in the complaint that
because of the Illinois-based Espar's part in the price-fixing
scheme, Raccoon Valley and hundreds of thousands of others paid
supracompetitive prices for the products.

"During the class period, plaintiff and the other members of the
class . . . paid more for such products than they would have paid
in the absence of such antitrust violations," the complaint says.

The suit accuses Espar of restraining interstate and foreign trade
and commerce, in violation of Section 1 of the federal Sherman
Antitrust Act, in addition to the antitrust and restraint of trade
laws of 19 states and Washington, D.C.

The complaint seeks damages to be specified at trial and an
injunction against additional activity, among other things.  The
complaint also seeks certification of a class of those who bought
the heaters for commercial vehicles in 19 states and D.C. from
October 2007 to the present.

The suit is the first following the U.S. Department of Justice's
March 12 announcement about Espar's guilty plea.

Espar is accused of conspiring with other companies to fix prices
of parking heaters for commercial vehicles in the U.S. and
elsewhere throughout North America.  The devices heat the inside
of a vehicle when the engine is turned off.

The company pled guilty to one count of price-fixing under the
Sherman Antitrust Act, the U.S. Department of Justice said, a
felony charge that carries a maximum penalty of a $100 million
criminal fine for corporations.  Espar's fine will be specified at
a June 5 sentencing hearing in Brooklyn federal court.

Over the course of more than five years, from October 2007 to
December 2012, Espar and other unidentified companies agreed to
set a price floor for parking heater kits sold to aftermarket
customers and coordinated the timing and amount of price
increases, the DOJ said.  Additionally, the companies are alleged
to have exchanged information for the purpose of monitoring and
enforcing the agreement.

Authorities said that Espar has agreed to cooperate with an
ongoing probe into price-fixing and other anti-competitive
activities in the industry, which is being led by the Antitrust
Division's New York office, with assistance from the FBI.

Espar is a unit of Germany's Eberspaecher Climate Control Systems
International Beteiligungs-GmbH, according to court filings.  In a
statement on March 13, Eberspaecher spokeswoman Gabriela Schoppe
said that Espar has cooperated fully with the DOJ throughout its
investigation and has since taken corrective measures.

On March 16, the complaint filed by Raccoon Valley and Illinois-
based independent trucking contractor Audrius Labaciauskas says
that because the public only learned of the price-fixing scheme
from the DOJ's announcement, the claims of the plaintiffs and
class members are not time-barred.

"Defendants engaged in a secret conspiracy that did not give rise
to facts that would put plaintiff or the class on inquiry notice
that there was a conspiracy to fix prices for parking heaters in
the aftermarket," the suit says.

Raccoon Valley and Labaciauskas are represented by Jason Zweig,
Steve. W Berman and Elizabeth A. Fegan of Hagens Berman Sobol &
Shapiro LLP, as well as J. Barton Goplerud of Hudson Mallaney
Shindler & Anderson PC and David Freydin and Timothy A. Scott of
the Law Offices of David Freydin Ltd.

The case is Raccoon Valley Transport Inc. et al. v. Espar Inc.,
case number 1:15-cv-01338, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.


EXPEDIA INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss Suit Over Deceptive Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge allowed a deceptive advertising class action against
Expedia to proceed and threatened the online travel company with a
$1,000-a-day fine for withholding discovery documents, calling its
objections "obstructionist muck."

Lead plaintiff Jeffrey Weidenhamer claims Expedia used a pop-up ad
to offer a bogus discount and misled consumers about luggage fees.

Weidenhamer said he paid $650 in baggage fees because Expedia
falsely promised one free checked bag, and says he was not given a
promised 5 percent discount for using Expedia's mobile
application.

Expedia eventually refunded Weidenhamer the amount of the discount
but did not reimburse him for baggage fees.  It claimed
Weidenhamer had no case on the discount claim because he got a
refund, and sought dismissal for lack of standing.

U.S. District Judge Richard Jones on March 23 denied Expedia's
motion, saying Weidenhamer still suffered a "loss of time" in
getting the refund.

"Mr. Weidenhamer alleges more than one concrete injury.
Confronted with a website that would not allow him to make airfare
purchases, he accepted Expedia's representations (via the pop-up
window) that if he downloaded the Expedia app, he could not only
complete his purchases, he would receive a 5% discount.  He did
not receive the discount.  Because of that, he expended time
attempting to wheedle a credit out of Expedia.  When he met with
no success, he expended more time complaining to the Attorney
General of Ohio," Judge Jones wrote.

Jones ruled that a "full" refund is not full compensation unless
"it comes with compensation for the lost time value of the money."

He said that Weidenhamer's claim is no different that "virtually
every other false advertising claim."

"Expedia's focus on its refund also gives short shrift to the
third injury apparent on the face of Mr. Weidenhamer's complaint.
When confronted with a website that was not serving its intended
purpose (facilitating the purchase of airfare), he relied on a
pop-up window offering a 5% discount as an inducement to download
an app that permitted him to complete the transaction.  As he
points out, he might have decided, when confronted with the
malfunctioning website, to use one of Expedia's competitors to
purchase airfare.  But he did not, at least in part because of the
discount offer.  Thus, Mr. Weidenhamer paid Expedia nearly $1,600
for airfare he might have purchased from another site," Jones
wrote.

Jones also rejected Expedia's claim that Weidenhamer was barred
from injunctive relief because he would not be "fooled" by the
false advertisement again.

"The same reasoning demonstrates Mr. Weidenhamer's standing to
seek injunctive relief as to the app claim.  Expedia contends that
Mr. Weidenhamer now knows about the deceptive pop-up window, so
there is no plausible allegation that he will be fooled if he
encounters it in the future.  The court rejects Expedia's Catch-22
defense, which would make federal courts powerless to enjoin false
advertising, at least when a duped consumer points it out.  In
Expedia's view, it can falsely advertise a discount, induce a
plaintiff like Mr. Weidenhamer to make purchases, and continue to
ensnare future customers without fear of an injunction because
that plaintiff has learned his lesson," wrote.

The judge had harsh words for Expedia's "boilerplate objections"
to discovery requests.

"Expedia's responses are obstructionist, dilatory, and, in too
many instances, facially false.  What 'privilege' pertains to the
steps Expedia took to confirm the availability of Mr.
Weidenhamer's airfare?  How is the identity of the people who
helped prepare Expedia's interrogatory responses a 'trade secret'
or 'propriety information'?" the judge asked in the 15-page
ruling.

He gave Expedia 14 days to issue new responses or face sanctions
of $1,000 a day.  He also denied Weidenhamer's request to extend
the class certification deadline past April 16.

Jeffrey D. Weidenhamer v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01239-
RAJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle.


FIFTH GENERATION: Falsely Marketed Vodka Products, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynica Emanuello, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fifth Generation, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
11513 (D. Mass., April 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
false and misleading marketing and advertisement that its' Tito's
Vodka is handmade, when in fact it is made via a highly-mechanized
process that is devoid of human hands.

Fifth Generation, Inc. is a Texas corporation that owns and
operates a distillery with a principal place of business at 12101
Moore Road, Austin, Texas 78719.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580.8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583.1905
      E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com

         - and -

      Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
      KYROS LAW OFFICES
      17 Miles Rd.
      Hingham, MA 02043
      Telephone: (800) 934-2921
      E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

         - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: 202.789.3960
      Facsimile: 202.589.1813
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789.3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589.1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      John Donboli, Esq.
      DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
      12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793.6244
      Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
      E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com


FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS: Client's Suit Over Legal Fees Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Lynn, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that a Mahwah
man's lawsuit claiming that his lawyers overcharged him in a
personal-injury case can move forward under a recent court ruling
-- though one of the original defendants, the well-known law firm
Jacoby & Meyers, has been let off the hook.

Jeffrey Harding of Mahwah and his 80-year-old mother,
Nancy Harding of Rockland County, hired lawyers with ties to
Jacoby & Meyers, a New York company known for its television
commercials, to file two slip-and-fall lawsuits on their behalf.

Nancy Harding hired Finkelstein & Partners of Newburgh, N.Y.,
after she suffered an injury at a Suffern, N.Y., tile business,
and Jeffrey Harding, who had a separate case, hired Andrew
Finkelstein of Finkelstein & Partners.

The Finkelstein firm shares many office locations and staff with
Jacoby & Meyers, according to a lawsuit filed by the Hardings
after their slip-and-fall cases were settled.

In their lawsuit, both Nancy and Jeffrey Harding claimed that the
lawyers overcharged them by adding fees for services from a
company, Total Trial Solutions, which was partly owned by their
lawyers.  Those fees were in addition to the regular attorneys'
fees of 33 percent of the amount recovered, the Hardings said in
their lawsuit, which named Jacoby & Meyers, Finkelstein &
Partners, Total Trial Solutions, and Andrew Finkelstein and
Kenneth Oliver, who were named as owners of Total Trial Solutions
as well as partners in the law firms.

According to their suit, after Nancy Harding's case was settled
for $195,000, she discovered that she had been billed $3,870 for
work done by Total Trial Solutions.

After her son's case was settled for $99,000, he found he had been
charged $2,960 for work done by Total Trial Solutions.

A recent ruling by federal Judge Madeline Cox Arleo threw out the
counts against Jacoby & Meyers, which didn't sign a retainer
agreement with the Hardings.  But she ruled that other parts of
the lawsuit could move forward.

Joseph Santoli, a Ridgewood lawyer who filed the suit on the
Hardings' behalf, said he plans to pursue the case as a class
action, estimating there may be 10,000 people affected. "We're
going to go into discovery and find out how many people are in the
class," he said.

The attorney for the defendants did not return a call seeking
comment.


FLORIDA: Citrus Owners May Face Long Wait to Get Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Musgrave, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that an
estimated 26,000 Palm Beach County homeowners who lost citrus
trees to the state's failed canker eradication program have to do
one thing to collect their share of an estimated $16.1 million
verdict approved by a jury: Wait.

Barring action in the coming weeks by the Florida Legislature, it
will take at least until the end of 2016 for the appeals process
to run its course, said attorney Robert Gilbert, who is
representing homeowners in the class-action lawsuit.

Canker will cause fruit to have raised lesions ringed in yellow.
If the Palm Beach County jury verdict is upheld by appellate
courts, the state will be forced to put the money in a court
registry, Mr. Gilbert said.  Once a judge has approved the
distribution method, the checks will be mailed.

Unlike other class-action lawsuits, homeowners don't have to file
claims to get money for the trees that were cut down by state
workers as part of the $1 billion program that was abandoned in
2006.  The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
has records of the locations of all 66,493 trees in the county
that were cut down, Gilbert said. People who have moved will be
tracked to their current address, he said.

"People don't have to file anything to get reimbursed," he said.

In hopes of getting money to people faster, Mr. Gilbert said he
and his legal team have asked Florida lawmakers to appropriate
money in the current legislative session to pay homeowners here
and three other counties where juries also agreed the state should
pay the full price for the citrus trees that were destroyed.  Last
year, similar efforts failed.

In the meantime, he suggested people contact their state
representatives and urge them to appropriate money to pay for the
citrus trees.  He said people who have questions can email him at:
RCG@grossmanroth.com


FRANKLY CO.: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, denied defendant's motion in the
case GLEN HARNISH, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLY CO., a Delaware
corporation Defendant, CASE NO. 5:14-CV-02321-EJD (N.D Cal.)

The defendant Frankly Co. operates Frankly App, a free mobile chat
application that allows friend, co-workers, family members, and
personal contacts to communicate openly, safely, and privately.

Plaintiff Glen Harnish alleges that on May 15, 2014, he received
an unsolicited text message from defendant.  The "from" field of
the text message was identified as short code 27367, and the
message read: "I want to share disappearing photos & text with
you! Get it & add me:nni66 franklychat.com/c -- Alex . Plaintiff
alleges that he did not consent to the receipt of this text
message.

Plaintiff commenced the class action on May 19, 2014, alleging a
single claim of violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq. and alleges that unlike
conventional advertisements, this type of wireless spam invades
privacy and cost recipients money since cell phone users must pay
for each text message received or is deducted from their text
message plan.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, or in
the alternative, motion to stay proceedings.

Judge Davila denied defendant's motions and ordered defendant to
file an answer.

A case management conference in the case was set for March 26,
2015.

A copy of Judge Davila's order dated March 11, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/WJfXEWfrom Leagle.com

Glen Harnish, individually and on behalf of class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Matthew
Meyers -- info@mcgpc.com -- at McGuire Law, P.C. & Suzanne L.
Havens Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- at Parisi & Havens
LLP

Frankly Co., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com-- Bradley Thomas
Meissner -- bmeissner@fenwick.com -- at Fenwick and West LLP


FULL CITIZENSHIP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Anthony, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Full Citizenship Of Maryland, Inc., Case No. 8:15-
cv-00977 (D. Md., April 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Full Citizenship Of Maryland, Inc. provides support and training
services to adult individuals with disabilities in Prince George's
County and Montgomery County, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
      519 H Street NW, Second Floor
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 803-6083
      Facsimile: (202) 683-6102
      E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


GE CAPITAL: Sells Consumer Financing Unit Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that GE Capital's Australian consumer
lending arm, which operates a suite of financial services that
includes the popular interest-free deal loans spruiked by
retailers such as Harvey Norman, has been sold to a consortium led
by private equity giant KKR for $8.2 billion.

The deal, as foreshadowed by DataRoom, will give the partners GE
Capital's Australia and New Zealand consumer lending business, a
leading financial services provider with more than three million
customers.

Consortium partners also include Deutsche Bank and alternative
investment manager Varde Partners, which ranks as Australia's
biggest private equity deal since the global financial crisis.

The move by GE to exit consumer finance follows global efforts to
shrink its banking business.  Indeed, investors have pressured the
US conglomerate to reduce the size of its massive banking business
and return to a more industrial focus such as aircraft engines,
power turbines and medical scanners.

Also, regulators are forcing financial companies to hold more
capital to help protect from economic shocks.  While GE does not
have a banking license in Australia, the size of its lending book
affects banking operations globally.

Shareholders continued to penalize the company for what they
perceive as a risky finance business, and GE's stock has
underperformed some of its industrial peers that do not have a
banking arm.

Globally, GE is aiming to reduce GE Capital's share of the broader
company's profit to 25 per cent next year, from 42 per cent last
year.

In Australia, the deal allowed GE's Australia and New Zealand arm
to focus on key industries such as oil and gas, energy, healthcare
and mining, said GE Australia & New Zealand chief Geoff Culbert on
March 15.  At the same time the company would continue its
lucrative commercial leasing and financing business.

In a sign that financial services investors are prepared to again
take on greater risk, the sale of the GE business was highly
contested.  Four bidders were vying for the book right up until
the bids closed.

Macquarie Group was bidding with Pepper Group while a separate bid
was tabled by TPG Capital alliance, which included Blackstone,
Liberty Financial and some of TPG's investors.  Private equity
firm Apollo was also understood to be bidding.  GE Capital
Australia & New Zealand chief executive Duncan Berry said: "We are
delighted to have signed this agreement with a well-respected
consortium of businesses.  Consumer finance has been a great
business for GE and is well positioned for further growth."

One challenge for the new owners will be maintaining a point-of-
sale relationship with retailers, including Harvey Norman.

The sale came as GE's credit card business is embroiled in a class
action from customers who have been hit with late fees.  An
unfavorable ruling in the action could see tens of millions of
dollars returned to customers. It is believed that the KKR, Varde
Partners and Deutsche group have agreed to bear a greater amount
of the business's potential liabilities, including the late fees.

Joseph Bae, managing partner for KKR Asia, said the investment
firm would leverage its global and regional expertise and platform
to create an exciting future for this business.

"We are delighted to have the opportunity to partner with Varde
Partners and Deutsche Bank to support both existing and new
customers and product growth in the years to come," said KKR
Australia director Ed Bostock.  "GE Capital is one the most
respected providers of consumer finance in Australasia. They are
led by a strong management team with an outstanding track record
of partnering with leading retailers."

"Varde Partners believes this partnership will provide a platform
for growth in the dynamic consumer finance market in Australia and
New Zealand. It is a natural extension of our deep expertise in
specialty consumer finance and a great fit for us," said
George Hicks, a founding partner and co-chief executive of Varde
Partners.

The transaction is subject to customary regulatory approvals.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch advised the KKR consortium while GE
was advised by Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley.  The deal is
subject to regulatory approvals.


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Carcinogenic Solvents
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Sarich, writing for Global Research, reports that unlike
Pepsi Co, which recently got let loose from a class action lawsuit
concerning a carcinogen used in soda, a class action lawsuit
against the maker of Cheerios, Yoplait yogurt, and Pillsbury
cinnamon rolls was just certified by a federal judge.

Minneapolis residents claim that General Mills polluted their air
and water with more than 15,000 gallons of carcinogenic solvents
that have seeped into homes.

General Mills (GM) makes hundreds of foods that most Americans are
used to eating on a daily basis, but the company obviously has
little concern for the health of the mouths they make millions
from.  Plaintiffs in the class action suit claim that GM released
trichloroethylene -- a chemical used to extract vegetable oils
from plant materials -- into the area around its former facility
in Minneapolis.  The company disposed approximately 15,000 gallons
of chemical solvents into the air and water supply.

Dr. Lorne Everett, an expert for the citizens of Minneapolis
states that:

"[GM disposed of] large quantities of toxic chemicals, including
[trichloroethylene] TCE, at the facility, has resulted in
widespread soil vapor contamination."

GM is blaming it on other nearby facilities, in a typical Big Food
'it wasn't me' defense, as well as saying household solvents were
the cause -- indeed -- for 15000 gallons of chemical, carcinogenic
solvents.

GM has had to investigate the quality of the air, water, and soil
around its facilities before due to concerns of toxicity.

GM also knowingly disposed of 1,000 gallons of laboratory solvents
and other chemical wastes at its technical research property. In
1980, General Mills sold the property to the Henkel Corporation,
which ceased operation in 1985.

In the recent past, mega-corporation General Mills was forced to
remove the label "100% Natural" from more than 20 of its products,
including its Nature Valley snack bars and crispy squares.  The
company was trying to market and sell their product as being
'natural,' when in fact they were chock-full of toxic, non-natural
ingredients.  Just another example of how GM lacks any regard for
the population.

At least 200 homes have allegedly been compromised by the latest
GM chemical dumping.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Further Ignition Switch Suit Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Vlasic, writing for The New York Times, reports that while
General Motors has settled one potentially explosive lawsuit
related to defective ignition switches, the company still faces
the possibility of depositions of its employees in a broader
class-action case.

A number of current and former G.M. employees are scheduled to be
questioned under oath, beginning in May, in a sweeping case in
federal court in New York.

G.M. avoided depositions in the wrongful-death case settled with
the parents of Brooke Melton, 29, a Georgia woman who was killed
in a crash in a Chevrolet Cobalt equipped with a faulty ignition
switch.

But the lawyers who represented Ms. Melton's parents said on
March 16 that legal efforts to collect internal G.M. documents and
depose employees would continue nonetheless.

The lawyers said that the discovery process begun in Ms. Melton's
case had accelerated similar efforts in the so-called
multidistrict litigation, which consolidates a number of lawsuits
for injury and death cases, as well as economic losses sustained
by owners of defective vehicles.

"The Meltons' work is done," said Lance Cooper, one of the lawyers
representing Ken and Beth Melton, who sued G.M. twice for
manufacturing an unsafe car that caused their daughter's death.

The first lawsuit filed by the Meltons was settled by G.M. for $5
million two years ago.

That settlement came after the discovery process revealed that
G.M. had been secretly grappling with faulty ignition switches in
millions of small cars for about a decade.

The case prompted more internal investigations at G.M. and led to
the recall of about 2.6 million Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars
with defective switches starting in February of last year.

After the recalls began, however, the Meltons decided to file a
second lawsuit against G.M., and offered to return their $5
million settlement.

Their goal, Mr. Cooper said, was "to uncover the truth" about how
G.M. failed for years to fix a deadly defect that has now been
linked to 67 deaths and 113 injuries.

The second lawsuit forced G.M. to produce reams of internal
documents, including confidential communications between company
officials and their in-house and outside lawyers, Mr. Cooper said.
The Meltons' lawyers had also been pursuing depositions of G.M.
officials who had firsthand knowledge of ignition-switch failures.

Mr. Cooper said that in January the Meltons were approached by
Kenneth Feinberg, G.M.'s hired compensation expert, about filing a
claim against the company as part of the overall compensation
program set up for victims of accidents related to faulty
ignitions.

The Meltons ultimately filed a claim and accepted a confidential
settlement.  "They were emotionally exhausted," Mr. Cooper said,
adding that they chose not to speak publicly on the settlement.

A G.M. spokesman, James Cain, confirmed that the company resolved
the Meltons' lawsuit.  But he declined to provide any further
details.

Mr. Cooper said that the original $5 million received in the first
lawsuit is part of the settlement.  He declined to say how much
more money Mr. Feinberg awarded the Meltons.

The family's legal battle with G.M. has been a critical factor in
bringing to light G.M.'s lax safety procedures and internal
dysfunction.  As a result, the company has dismissed 15 employees,
reorganized its entire engineering organization, and recalled
about 30 million vehicles in total over a number of safety
defects.

Now the legal focus shifts to the multidistrict litigation, which
is set to go to trial in January.  Mr. Cooper said that documents
produced by G.M. in the Melton case had also been given to lawyers
in the multidistrict litigation.

Depositions are scheduled in May of a number of current and former
G.M. employees, as well as officials of Delphi, the firm that made
the ignition switches.

Among the first G.M. officials on the deposition list are
Alicia Boler-Davis, a senior executive in charge of global
quality, and Lucy Clark Dougherty, a top company lawyer.  Also on
the list is Jaclyn Palmer, one of five G.M. lawyers dismissed for
their role in the delayed ignition-switch recall.


GEORGIA: DOJ Mulls Class Action Over Inadequate Juvenile Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Wu, writing for Epoch Times, reports that federal
authorities have expressed interest in a class-action lawsuit in
Georgia, where plaintiffs said children accused of committing
crimes are being denied access to sufficient legal counsel.

In Cordele, Ga., a city of roughly 21,000 that advertises itself
as the "watermelon capital of the world," juvenile and poor
defendants routinely have no representation in court, or get
processed through the court system in "assembly-line fashion,"
according to the original court complaint filed in January 2014.

The Cordele Judicial Circuit had three full-time public defenders
to handle cases in four superior courts and four juvenile courts.
In 2012, the circuit handled 681 juvenile delinquency cases, but
the public defender's office reported handling only 52 of them,
according to the complaint.  The office's total caseload that year
was 1,384.

Because the office is so understaffed, children defendants are
often left without proper legal representation.

One 13-year-old, for example, identified only as A.J. in the
complaint, was charged in four separate cases all relating to
being disruptive at school.  She denied the charges against her
and was served a subsequent court date.

However, no public defender visited her to discuss her case before
the court hearing.  Having only met her public defender the day of
the hearing, A.J. decided that the attorney would not be able to
mount a defense and thus pled guilty.  She was sentenced to 14
days in detention and 12 months on probation.  A.J. also had to
pay $50 in court fees and $50 in public defender fees for each of
her four cases.

In another case, 17-year-old W.M. was charged with theft for
stealing a set of Halloween fangs from a local Wal-Mart.  No
public defender was available to represent him on the day of his
court hearing, as they were all working at another local court.
According to the complaint, the juvenile court judge did not
inform W.M. of the consequences should he waive the right to
counsel.  W.M. thus agreed to proceed without a lawyer and pled
guilty to his offense. He was sentenced to nine months probation,
40 hours of community service, and an 8 p.m. daily curfew. He also
had to pay court fees.

On March 13, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of
interest with the presiding state court in the case, N.P. et al.
v. The State of Georgia, et al., describing legal precedents for
the constitutional protection of a child defendant's right to
counsel.  The DOJ said this was the first time it expressed
interest in a state court case regarding the right to counsel for
children.

It noted that lawyers representing children should be especially
trained to work with them, due to characteristics that make them
more vulnerable to criminal activity than adults, including the
tendency for risk-taking, inability to assess the consequences of
their actions, and susceptibility to negative influences.

Lawyers representing children should be especially trained to work
with them.

The DOJ further explained that an attorney working with children
"must be aware of their clients' individual and family histories,
their schooling, developmental disabilities, mental and physical
health, and the client's status in their communities," taking care
to advocate for rehabilitative treatment if the child is found
guilty of charges.

The court complaint said the Cordele court circuit did not have an
attorney who specializes in juvenile defense.

The DOJ warned that it was a violation of the Constitution not
only to deny a child a lawyer, but also to make an attorney
available in name only.  "A state further deprives children of
their right to counsel if its courts allow them to waive that
right without first consulting with competent counsel."

On March 13, the legal organization that filed the lawsuit on
behalf of eight plaintiffs, the Southern Center for Human Rights,
released a statement calling the DOJ's involvement in a state
court case "very rare."

"The difference between what DOJ says is legally required and what
is going on in the Cordele Circuit shows that children accused of
delinquent acts are neglected and often receive only token
representation or no representation at all in Georgia," said
Stephen Bright, president and senior counsel of the center.

In 2012, the DOJ released a damning report after investigating the
juvenile court system in Shelby County, Tenn., where it found that
the courts sent black youth defendants to be tried in adult
criminal courts at a rate more than two times higher than white
defendants.  The courts also routinely violated the children's
constitutional rights, such as not informing them of their Miranda
right to remain silent.


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Jedrychowski" Suit Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jagoda Jedrychowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc., Target Corporation,
Walgreen Co., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02908
(N.D. Ill., April 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
misrepresentation that their store brand herbal supplements
contained certain primary ingredients listed on the product label.
When in fact, the herbal supplements fail to contain the
ingredients they were represented to contain but rather contained
a variety of other materials that were not disclosed by the
Defendants.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal
place of business at 300 Sixth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling
herbal supplements in the United States.

Target Corporation is a Minnesota corporation with its principal
place of business at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota
that owns and operates discount retail stores throughout the
United States.

Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business at 108 Wilmott Road, Deerfield, Illinois. It owns and
operates drug retailing chain in the United States.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 702 S.W. 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas,
which owns and operates a chain of discount department stores and
warehouse stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
      Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
      Donald L. Sawyer, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Ste 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
              rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
              dsawyer@fklmlaw.com


GURSTEL CHARGO: Obtains Final Approval of Smith Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon granted final approval
of a class action settlement in GARY D. SMITH, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. GURSTEL
CHARGO, PA, Defendant, NO. 8:14CV183, (D. Neb.).

The Court certified this action as a class action, for settlement
purposes only, on behalf of the class defined as: All individuals
in the State of Nebraska to whom during the period commencing four
years prior to the filing of suit, June 17, 2014, through the date
of preliminary approval, November 17, 2014, the defendant sent a
letter substantially similar to Exhibit A to the plaintiff's
complaint and whose letter was not returned as undeliverable.
A sub-class ("the FDCPA sub-class") is certified consisting of
Nebraska consumers to whom such letters were sent during the
portion of the class period commencing one year prior to the
filing of this suit.

Excluded from the Class are:

a. any person who is already subject to an existing release;


b. any person who was deceased as of the date of the preliminary
approval order;

c. any person who was discharged in bankruptcy under Title 11 of
the United States Code as of the date of the preliminary approval
order; and

d. any Class Member who timely mailed a request for exclusion,
namely, Monica A. Fisher and Jerry L. Mertz.

The Court finally certified plaintiff Gary D. Smith as the Class
Representative and O. Randolph Bragg, Pamela A. Car, and William
L. Reinbrecht as Class Counsel for the Class Members.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiff's class claims
against the defendant are dismissed.

The plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees was also
granted.

The Court also entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
against defendant in the amount of $1,000 in statutory damages and
$2,000 in compensation for service as Class Representative, and in
the amount of $12,547.60 for attorney fees.

A copy of the Court's March 31, 2015 Final Order is available at
http://is.gd/IeIFQ3from Leagle.com.

Gary D. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg --
Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car --
pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht
-- billr205@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Gurstel Chargo, PA,, Defendant, represented by Amy L. Van Horne --
Amy.VanHorne@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Manuel H.
Newburger -- Mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- BARRON, NEWBURGER LAW
FIRM.


GYPSOPHILA NAIL: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shu Lan Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Gypsophila Nail & Spa Inc., "Sherry W" Doe
(last name unknown), John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-02520 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a beauty salon located at 225 West
12th Street, IB, New York, NY 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Autonomy Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lee, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that in
the end, the individual most responsible for making Hewlett-
Packard a better-run company was not CEO Meg Whitman or anyone on
the board of directors.

Instead, we can thank U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer.

Judge Breyer granted preliminary approval to a settlement over a
shareholder lawsuit over HP's botched $11.7 billion acquisition of
British software maker Autonomy.

Judges routinely sign off on such agreements.  What makes
Judge Breyer's actions so extraordinary is that he took a bad deal
that originally offered nothing to investors and forced the Palo
Alto computing giant to enact corporate governance reforms that
will benefit shareholders long after we (hopefully) forget about
the Autonomy acquisition.

"We are pleased with the Court's decision to grant preliminary
approval and look forward to the final hearing on July 24," an HP
spokeswoman said via e-mail.

First, some quick background. Under then-CEO Leo Apotheker, the
company purchased Autonomy in 2011, but later wrote off $8.8
billion of the acquisition, accusing Autonomy executives,
including ex-CEO Michael Lynch, of accounting fraud. Lynch denies
the allegations and says HP mismanaged his company.

Shareholders sued HP, including a "derivative action" that would
force the company to sue its own officers and directors for
breaching their fiduciary duty.

HP and shareholder lawyers crafted a controversial settlement.
After its "independent" investigation not surprisingly cleared
directors and officers of wrongdoing, HP agreed to sue Autonomy's
former officers, hiring the very lawyers that filed the derivative
lawsuit.

The deal provided nothing for shareholders.  But it did offer
those lawyers a potentially lucrative payday: a guaranteed
$562,000 retainer for 32 months, plus millions of dollars if HP
successfully recouped money from the former Autonomy executives,
according to court documents.

In an interview, attorney Mark Molumphy said the original
settlement was "misrepresented" to the public.

HP investor Stanley Morrical did hire Mr. Molumphy and colleague
Joseph Cotchett to sue the company.  But unlike a class-action
lawsuit, the lawyers didn't seek financial damages for
shareholders.  Instead, under derivative actions, any recovered
money goes directly to HP, not investors.  So there was nothing
improper about HP hiring him and Mr. Cotchett to help sue the ex-
Autonomy officials, he said.

In any case, Judge Breyer rejected the deal. He also said no to a
revised settlement.

Under the latest version, HP still plans to go after Lynch, the
ex-Autonomy CEO, but the company dropped its plan to hire
Messrs. Molumphy and Cotchett.  In addition, HP will create a new
"risk management committee" made of executives that will vet
mergers and acquisitions and report to the board of directors, Mr.
Molumphy said.  HP will also implement a better computer system
that allows different departments throughout the company to
communicate with each other and share information about potential
deals.

The reforms will apply to both Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, which
consists of the company's corporate information technology
operations, and HP Inc., which represents personal computers and
business.  Last October, HP said it will split itself into those
two companies to better improve shareholder value.

Through this settlement, HP is admitting what we already knew: The
company's system to evaluate acquisitions prior to Autonomy was a
complete joke.

"The deal is a good result for the company not just now but into
the future," Mr. Molumphy said.  "We always said HP's systems
needed to be improved. The company is not going to stop doing
deals."

Indeed, in March the company said it will purchase Aruba Networks
for $2.7 billion.  Unfortunately, the reforms won't come in time
to apply to this acquisition.

On the plus side, the deal couldn't be any worse than Autonomy --
if anything because HP is paying a lot less for Aruba.

And given HP's record of late, we should declare victory and call
it a day.


HOSTO & BUCHAN: Accused of Winning By Submitting False Affidavits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Dallas law firm won fraudulent judgments against thousands of
victims by submitting false affidavits to judges, a class action
claims, reports Erik de la Garza at Courthouse News Service.

The Texas Association of Fraudulent Judgment Victims sued Hosto &
Buchan PLLC, of Dallas, and attorney Melvin Thathiah, of Plano on
March 19 in Dallas County Court.  It claims that a Texas Attorney
General investigation exposed the law firm's scheme of defrauding
the court "on a massive scale."

The association sued as assignee of Norma Glazier, Alice Perkins
and others similarly situated.  It claims that the defendants sued
them on behalf of Midland Funding in 2007 and 2008.

"The lawsuit is the result of public disclosures by the Texas
Attorney General that Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit
Management Inc., Encore Capital Group Inc. and its attorneys
engaged in 'fraud on a massive scale' by using false affidavits to
deceive Texas courts into invoking its jurisdiction and signing
'thousands' of false and 'fraudulent judgments' against Texas
residents," the lawsuit states.

Texas charged California-based Encore and its subsidiaries in 2011
with defrauding the Texas judicial system and violating debt
collection laws.  The association claims that Glazier and Perkins
et al. did not learn of the Texas attorney general's consumer
fraud investigation that exposed the deception until May 2014.

"Prior to that time, Norma L. Glazier and Alice Perkins did not
know, or have a reasonable basis for knowing, that Midland Funding
and its attorneys had deceived courts into rendering void and
fraudulent judgments against them," the complaint states.

The putative class, estimated in the thousands, wants all
judgments obtained by fraud on the court voided, appointment of a
Master in Chancery, attorney's fees, and sanctions "to punish
conduct which abuses the judicial process."

"The determination by the Texas Attorney General that Midland
Funding and its attorneys have committed 'fraud on the court on a
massive scale' involving the use of 'thousands' of false
affidavits against Texas residents (90% of whom were determined to
be financially unable to retain counsel in the lawsuits that
result in judgments against them) is sufficient for this court to
find that this lawsuit is an 'exceptional case' and that 'good
cause' exists for the appointment of a Master in Chancery," the
class claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ross Teter of Dallas.

Mark Stout, a Fort Worth attorney representing Hosto & Buchan,
told Courthouse News that the claims are without merit and that
the law firm will "vigorously" defend the lawsuit.

He called the lawsuit "frivolous."

"(O)n at least four different occasions in the last thirty days,
Mr. Teter and/or his clients have had lawsuits dismissed and/or
been sanctioned under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code by district courts for alleging similar claims,"
Stout said.


HUTCHISON TREE: Faces "Berber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Berber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hutchison Tree Service, Northstar Energy Services,
Inc. and Piedmont Natural Gas, Inc., and Craig Hutchinson, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00143 (E.D.N.C., April 3, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

Hutchison Tree Service is a Tennessee-based company that provides
tree services such as tree pruning, tree removal, tree trimming,
land clearing and stump grinding.

Northstar Energy Services, Inc. is a Texas that provides
infrastructure construction and support services to owners and
builders of energy, pipeline.

Piedmont Natural Gas, Inc. is a North Carolina domestic
corporation that provides natural gas to residential and business
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
      315 S. Salem St., Suite 310
      Apex, NC 27502
      Telephone: (919) 741-0981
      E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com


INDUSTRIAL METAL: Faces "Sianez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sianez and Fidel Reyes Zabala, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v.
Industrial Metal Enterprise, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02936 (N.D.
Ill., April 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per
week.

Industrial Metal Enterprise, Inc. owns and operates a wholesale
scrap metals and iron company located at 901 North Kilpatrick
Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Student Loan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas F. B. Smyth, Esq. -- nsmyth@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith reports that on March 9, District Judge Sarah Evans Barker
issued her long-anticipated order on the motion to dismiss in CFPB
v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00292 (S.D. Ind.).
Judge Barker denied ITT's motion to dismiss the Bureau's
unfairness and abusiveness claims but granted it on the Bureau's
TILA claim.  At 67 pages, the order provides one of the longest
and most thorough judicial opinions about the Bureau's abusiveness
authority to date.

CFPB complaint alleged that ITT coerced students into taking on
private loans

In its complaint, filed in February 2014, the CFPB alleged that
ITT Tech, a for-profit college, pressured students into enrolling
by using high-pressure sales tactics and offering no-interest
loans, called "Temporary Credit," which were good for the
student's first academic year.  Students needed these loans to
fill the "tuition gap" between what federal loans and grants
covered and the cost of ITT's tuition.  The Bureau alleged that
ITT knew from the outset that many students would not be able to
repay their Temporary Credit balances at the end of the first year
or fund their next year's tuition gap.  Instead, according to the
Bureau, ITT's financial aid staff rushed students through a
process of refinancing the no-interest loans and paying for the
gap with high-cost private loans that ITT had designed and helped
manage.  It alleged that ITT knew as early as May 2011 that more
than 60 percent of the students who received the private loans
would default.

Creating oppressive circumstances for consumers satisfies the
"abusive" standard

The order helps put some meat on the bones of the Bureau's
authority to prevent "abusive" acts and practices.  The CFPB's
complaint alleged abusive practices under two of the four prongs
of 12 U.S.C. Sec. 5531(d):

(d) ABUSIVE. -- The Bureau shall have no authority under this
section to declare an act or practice abusive in connection with
the provision of a consumer financial product or service, unless
the act or practice

materially interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand
a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service; or
takes unreasonable advantage of

a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the
material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service;
the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the
consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or
service; or

the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act
in the interests of the consumer.

First, CFPB alleged that ITT took unreasonable advantage of the
inability of consumers to protect their interests in selecting or
using a consumer financial product or service.  The judge rejected
ITT's argument that it did not take "unreasonable" advantage
because ITT's conduct is similar to the conduct of college
financial aid offices across the country.  She wrote, "the Bureau
has alleged conduct that--we hope--is not simply par for the
course; at any rate, the 'everyone else is doing it' defense does
not support a motion to dismiss absent an argument that the
allegations are legally invalid or factually implausible."  On the
meaning of "inability of the consumer to protect" her interests,
the judge wrote, a "reasonable reading of the statutory language .
. . is that it refers to oppressive circumstances," which the
Bureau sufficiently alleged. Interestingly, she cited a law review
article that suggests that this prong of the abusive standard "is
a statutory codification of the common-law doctrine of
unconscionability."

Second, the CFPB alleged that ITT took unreasonable advantage of
the reasonable reliance of consumers to act in the consumers'
interests.  Judge Barker wrote, "'Reasonable reliance' is a
familiar concept in tort law, and it is a question of fact
generally not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss,
or even summary judgment."  To the extent that future courts
follow Judge Barker's lead, this position could mean that the
Bureau in the future will only need to sufficiently plead that the
defendant took "unreasonable advantage" to withstand a motion to
dismiss.

Abusiveness captures conduct that may not be unfair or deceptive
In rejecting ITT's argument that the CFP Act's prohibition of
abusive practices is unconstitutionally vague, the judge wrote
that the legislative history "suggests that the term was added, in
part, to enable the Bureau to reach forms of misconduct not
embraced by the more rigid, cost-benefit standard that had grown
up around the terms 'unfair' and 'deceptive.'"  She wrote that the
statute itself provides "significant guidance" as to the term's
meaning.

The Bureau's authority and structure are not unconstitutional
Judge Barker rejected ITT's arguments that the Bureau and its
investigation of ITT and/or its authorities were unconstitutional,
noting that two other district courts have also rejected arguments
that the Bureau is unconstitutional.

The Bureau has jurisdiction over ITT as both a provider of
financial advisory services and as a service provider to the
private lenders ITT argued in its motion that the Bureau lacked
jurisdiction over it because it was merely an educational
institution, and that the financial aid counseling ITT provided
did not fall within the CFP Act's definition of "financial
advisory services."  The judge disagreed, writing that, at a
minimum, the Bureau had pleaded conduct that "would fall within
the realm of 'credit counseling' and 'assist[ing] a consumer with
debt management,'" two of the activities in the Act's definition
of financial advisory services.  The judge also held that the
Bureau had alleged conduct that would qualify ITT as a service
provider to the private lenders, citing ITT's involvement in
operating and maintaining the loan program, including its payment
of credit union membership fees for students and the stop-loss
guarantee it provided the private lenders.

The Bureau has sufficiently pleaded unfair practices The judge
applied the three-part unfairness test to the CFPB's complaint,
holding that: (1) allegations that ITT coerced 8,600 students into
private loans with interest rates as high as 16.25 percent and
origination fees as high as 10 percent adequately described a
substantial financial injury; (2) allegations that ITT threatened
to withhold transcripts or expel students if they failed to make
up their "tuition gap" described a situation that was not
reasonably avoidable; and (3) whether the harm is outweighed by
countervailing benefits is a factual question and that the
Bureau's detailed allegations of the harm were sufficient to state
a claim.

The TILA statute of limitations for civil actions bars the CFPB's
TILA claim The only silver lining for ITT and its lawyers is that
Judge Barker dismissed the Bureau's TILA claim as time-barred.
This ruling may make the Bureau reluctant to bring federal
district court claims under TILA for conduct that is not
continuing.  However, the order does not limit the Bureau's
ability to bring such claims in an administrative proceeding.


J.J CUSTOM: Faces "Piecora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Piecora, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated v.
J.J Custom Painting & Interior Design, Inc., Jose Iglesias and
Juan Pedro Quiroz, Case No. 0:15-cv-60674 (S.D. Fla., April 2,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

J.J Custom Painting & Interior Design, Inc. is a Florida
Corporation that is engaged in the painting and interior design
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Anthony Pancier, Esq.
      MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.
      9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
      Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
      Telephone: (954) 862-2217
      Facsimile: (954) 862-2287
      E-mail: mpancier@pancierlaw.com


JAMES D. SILL: Court Junks Summary Judgment Bid in "Goldsmith"
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Sill, Matthew J. Sill, Sill & Medley, PLLC, and Finkelstein
Thompson, LLP, have brought a motion for summary judgment in the
case IVAN GOLDSMITH; et al, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES D. SILL, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-0490-LDG-CWH, (D. Nev.).

District Judge Lloyd D. George found that genuine issues of fact
remain with respect to the claims challenged by defendants.
Therefore, Judge George denied the defendants' motion for summary
judgment is a copy of the court's March 26, 2015 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/RtkYmufrom Leagle.com.

M.D. Ivan Goldsmith, Plaintiff, represented by E. Brent Bryson --
ebbesqltd@yahoo.com -- E. Brent Bryson, Ltd.

Goldsmith Health Care, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by E. Brent
Bryson, E. Brent Bryson, Ltd.

James D Sill, Defendant, represented by Michael M. Edwards --
michael.edwards@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman
& Dicker & Sheri M. Thome -- sheri.thome@wilsonelser.com --
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Matthew J Sill, Defendant, represented by Michael M. Edwards,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker & Sheri M. Thome, Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Sill & Medley, PLLC, Defendant, represented by Michael M. Edwards,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker & Sheri M. Thome, Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Behran V Parekh, Defendant, represented by Michael M. Edwards,
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker & Sheri M. Thome, Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Kirtland & Packard, LLP, Defendant, represented by Michael M.
Edwards, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker & Sheri M. Thome,
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Finkelstein Thompson, LLP, Defendant, represented by Michael M.
Edwards, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker & Sheri M. Thome,
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.


JAMES HARDIE: 400+ Homeowners Join Cladding Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rob Stock, writing for Dominion Post, reports that more than 400
owners of leaky buildings have registered for a $100 million class
action lawsuit seeking damages from cladding manufacturers.

Auckland lawyer Adina Thorn said registrations have come from
throughout the country as well as Australia and Britain.

Ms. Thorn, who has extensive experience in representing victims of
leaky buildings, said her lawsuit aimed to prove that cladding
manufacturers sold faulty products, and will be funded on a "no
win, no fee" basis by overseas litigation funders.

But before the funders, who remain anonymous, commit the money,
Ms. Thorn said she needs to have signed up building owners with
total damage of about $100 million.  Though there have been over
400 registrations so far through the goodcladding.co.nz website,
including from Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Hamilton, New
Plymouth and Blenheim, Ms. Thorn said she had not reached that
level yet. "I think we are going to get to $100m," she said.

The geographic spread of registrations had surprised her.

"I thought the registrations would be a lot more Auckland-centred,
but that's not the case."

The leaky building scandal is estimated to have resulted in costs
of more than $11 billion to repair or replace leaky buildings
constructed between 1994 and 2005, with most of the costs
shouldered by the buildings' owners.

There are many reasons why homeowners have been left out of pocket
despite the existence of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and a
Government scheme that could provide 50 per cent of the repair
costs.

Lower Hutt leaky building owner Annamarie Rangikotua, who has
registered to join the class action, said she only discovered her
Belmont home was leaky when she tried to sell it in 2013.

By that time, the home, built in 2001, was outside the 10-year
timeframe that would have enabled her to seek compensation through
the tribunal or Government scheme.

"I didn't know my house was leaky.  There's no sign of mould.
There's no musty smell," said Ms. Rangikotua, who believes many
owners still did not realise they own leaky buildings.

It would cost about $190,000 to fix her home, she said.

Ms. Thorn's planned lawsuit offered hope, Ms. Rangikotua said.  "I
have got nothing to lose, and I have got something to gain."

Auckland leaky homeowner Felicity Scott has also registered.  Her
Auckland home was built in 1998, so by the time the Government's
scheme was created in 2010, she was already outside the 10-year
qualifying time limit.

When Ms. Scott built her home, it never occurred to her that
materials could be on the market that would leak and rot, and she
followed the advice of her architect and builder.  She said her
home was well-built which meant it had not deteriorated as much as
other leaky homes, but she could not afford to reclad it, and its
sale value is low.

"It's the stigma. I have got a property that's reduced to its land
value," Ms. Scott said.

Ms. Thorn said: "This is all about buildings with plaster
cladding. It's not only about homes, it's all buildings -- homes,
commercial buildings [and] hospitals.  All buildings need to have
proper and safe cladding."

The claim was not covered by the 10-year limit in the Building
Act, which covers defective building work, she said.

Instead the action would seek to prove that products like
James Hardie's Harditex and Titan Board were defective.  For such
claims there was a six-year limit from the point at which the
owner of a leaky building knew that the product itself was faulty.

James Hardie has declined to comment on Ms. Thorn's action.


JASON'S PREMIER: Faces "Dempsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dempsey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Jason's Premier Pumping Services, LLC and
Jason Hauck, Case No. 1:15-cv-00703 (D. Colo., April 4, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants provide oil and gas well monitoring services to
energy companies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 West Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Sued Over Standardize Background Check Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Vazquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jetblue Airways Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02587
(S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants
practice of requiring job applicants to sign a standardized
background check application form which, requires job applicants
to expressly or impliedly waive certain rights, by agreeing that
all employment decisions, including hiring, firing or promotion,
are based upon allegedly legitimate and non-discretionary reasons,
and by including many other limitations, clauses and extraneous
language.

Jetblue Airways Corporation owns and operates an airline company
with a principal place of business at 27-01 Queens Plaza North,
Long Island City, New York 11101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam G. Singer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER
      14 South Main Street, Suites 4 & 5
      New City, NY 10956
      Telephone: (212) 842-2428
      Facsimile: (209) 844-2428
      E-mail: asinger2@alumni.law.upenn.edu

         - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, 19th Floor
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone:  215.735.8600
      Facsimile: 215.940.8000
      E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
              jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, PC
      One South Broad Street, 21st floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19101
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: Jshub@kohnswift.com


KAISER FOUNDATION: Plan Coverage Depends on "Normal Appearance"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whether Kaiser owes its patients coverage for reconstructive
surgery after massive weight-loss procedures remains a question
hung on what constitutes a "normal appearance," in the class
action's second week at trial, reports Katherine Proctor, writing
for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Wendy Gallimore, a teacher covered by the Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan, claims that plan systematically refuses to
pay for removal of excess skin after bariatric surgery, such as
gastric bypass, in violation of a provision of California's
Reconstructive Surgery Law.

The law requires health care plans to cover reconstructive surgery
performed "to correct or repair abnormal structures of the body"
necessary "to improve function" and "to create a normal
appearance."

Gallimore's attorney Robert Gianelli called John Katzen, a plastic
surgeon practicing in Beverly Hills, to the witness stand March
25.  Katzen, who said he performed 1,200 to 1,500 post-bariatric
procedures last year, said the normal appearance standard does not
imply bodily perfection.

"We need to create a normal appearance, not a super Athena body,
not a perfect 10," he said.  "Just a five out of 10 is OK."

Medical journals have stratifications on a patient's abnormal
versus normal appearance, Katzen said, but in his everyday
practices evaluating patients, he said, "I know it when I see it."

Kaiser's attorney Mark Palley repeatedly objected that Katzen's
testimony did not apply to Kaiser's practices, the ones at issue.

On cross-examination, Palley asked him to cite scholarly support
that quantified his appearance evaluation standards, which Katzen
was not able to provide.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Wynne Carvill is presiding at
the trial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Gianelli, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 798-4860

Kaiser is represented by:

          Mark Palley, Esq.
          MARION'S INN LLP
          1611 Telegraph Ave., Suite 707
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 451-6770
          Facsimile: (510) 451-1711
          E-mail: mp@marionsinn.com


KESTLER DIGITAL: Faces "Sequeida" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Sequeida, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Kestler Digital Printing, Inc. and Mario
Kestler, Case No. 1:15-cv-02911 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a printing services company located
at 4310 S Knox Ave, Chicago, IL 60632.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com

KRAFT FOODS: Illegally Manipulates Winter Wheat Prices, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Ploss, as Trustee for the Harry Ploss Trust Dtd 8/16/1993,
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group,
Inc. and Mondelez Global LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02937 (N.D. Ill.,
April 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manipulated the prices
of December 2011 Chicago Soft Red Winter Wheat futures contract,
and March 2012 wheat futures contract, and the options on such
wheat futures contracts traded on the Chicago Board of Trade
(CBOT) that caused artificial prices and artificial price trends.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is one of the largest food and beverage
companies in North America with headquarters located at 3 Lakes
Drive, Northfield, Illinois 60093.

Mondelez Global LLC is engaged in snack food business with
headquarters at 3 Parkway N, Deerfield, Illinois 60015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marvin Alan Miller, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 332-3400
      Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
      E-mail: Mmiller@millerlawllc.com

         - and -

      Christopher Lovell, Esq.
      Christopher M. McGrath, Esq.
      Amanda N. Miller, Esq.
      LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
      61 Broadway, Suite 501
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 608-1900
      Facsimile: (212) 719-4677
      E-mail: CLovell@lshllp.com
              CMcGrath@lshllp.com
              AMiller@lshllp.com


KSH YAMATO: Sued in Fla. Over Disabled Inaccessible Facilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KSH Yamato Crossing LLC, et al., Case No. 9:15-cv-
80429 (S.D. Fla., April 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to ensure that all goods, services and
facilities are readily accessible to and usable by the disabled.

KSH Yamato Crossing LLC owns and operates a public accommodation
known as Yamato Crossing, located at 202-222 Yamato Road., Boca
Raton, FL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeannette E. Albo, Esq.
      THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
      9444 S.W. 69th Ct.
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 502-4593
      E-mail: jalbo@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Thomas B. Bacon, Esq.
      THOMAS B. BACON, P.A.
      4868 S.W. 103rd Ave.
      Cooper City, FL 33328
      Telephone: (954) 925-6488
      Facsimile: (954) 237-1990
      E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com


LENOVO GROUP: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Superfish Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Acting on behalf of financially injured consumers, Weitz &
Luxenberg P.C. on March 12 filed a class-action lawsuit against
computer-maker Lenovo Group Ltd. and malware-supplier Superfish.

Weitz & Luxenberg contended in the complaint that Lenovo and
Superfish, among other things, knowingly and purposefully created
a security hole in certain Lenovo laptop and notebook computers
through which hackers could easily gain access to users'
confidential personal and financial information.

The New York City-based firm said its class-action was filed in
federal court for the Northern District of California.  Superfish
is headquartered in that district, while Lenovo's U.S.
headquarters are in Morrisville, NC, Weitz & Luxenberg added.

Weitz & Luxenberg explained that purchasers of these computers
suffer financial harm because the devices are vulnerable to cyber
attack, which renders them less valuable.

Weitz & Luxenberg said it is interviewing other potential
representative plaintiffs, and encourages people with the
offending laptops and notebooks to contact the firm at toll-free
(844) 300-4357 or through its website, www.weitzlux.com

Lenovo Still Selling With Superfish Malware

The filing was made against a backdrop of news that Lenovo has
continued to sell the malware-laden laptops and notebooks in the
months since the problem was discovered by consumers, said Weitz &
Luxenberg.

Robin L. Greenwald, who heads the firm's Environmental, Toxic Tort
& Consumer Protection Unit, said, "We are particularly troubled to
learn that Lenovo has not pulled its malware-infected products
from the market."

Greenwald said Lenovo should have immediately stopped selling
Superfish-equipped computers as soon as it knew of the problem.

"By continuing to sell those computers, the company shows
disregard for the security of the data that purchasers are
trusting will stay private and safe," she said.

Weitz & Luxenberg expressed dismay that the "fix" Lenovo offered
to consumers is ineffective at closing the security hole.

Said Greenwald, "The repair is supposed to remove the Superfish
software, but reports are that it only removes some of it."

Superfish Malware Deeply Hidden in Lenovo Computers

Weitz & Luxenberg's class-action lawsuit against Lenovo and
Superfish arises from the fact that Lenovo sold laptop computers
equipped with deeply embedded hidden malware called
VisualDiscovery, said Greenwald.

"Superfish's Visual Discovery product is designed to monitor
everything a user does with his or her device," she explained.

"Unfortunately, VisualDiscovery also renders the laptop or
notebook highly vulnerable to hackers," she continued.

Once hackers gain access to the Lenovo computer, they can command
it to disgorge whatever confidential information the user has
stored on it -- names, addresses, phone numbers, birth
certificates, Social Security numbers, banking records, employment
data, passwords, and anything else an identity thief might need to
commit financial crimes, Greenwald said.

In a practice known as "spoofing," the Superfish malware also
could potentially trick the computer into trusting fraudulent
websites designed to look like real ones, such as the user's bank
or favorite online shops, said Greenwald.

The malware-containing computers are Lenovo G, U, Y, Z, S, Flex,
MIIX, YOGA, and E series products sold since last September, Weitz
& Luxenberg said.

As Weitz & Luxenberg moves ahead with the class-action lawsuit
against Lenovo and Superfish, the law firm said it will continue
talking to Lenovo users about their legal rights to compensation
from both companies.

"Our class-action against Lenovo and Superfish is intended to help
consumers who have been harmed," said Greenwald.

"Those consumers have a right to be fully compensated for the
injustice done to them by these companies," she said. "Many of
them may find their quest for justice is best served by joining
our class-action lawsuit against Lenovo and Superfish."

                    About Weitz & Luxenberg

Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. is a personal injury and consumer
protection law firm.  Weitz & Luxenberg's numerous litigation
areas include: mesothelioma, defective medicine and devices,
environmental pollutants, products liability, consumer protection,
accidents, personal injury, and medical malpractice.


LICHTER GROUP: Plaintiffs in "Malinowski" May Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William D. Quarles of the District of Maryland,
Northern Division, granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend their complaint in the case STEVEN
MALINOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE LICHTER GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. WDQ-14-917 (D. Md.)

Trojan Horse, Ltd. is a mail transportation contractor, providing
mail services for the U.S. Postal Service under the McNamara-O'
Hara Service Contract Act (SCA). The SCA required Trojan Horse to
establish benefits for the plaintiffs and putative class members
that included pensions on retirement or death or equivalents.
Trojan Horse established the single employer plan, with a Trust
Plan funding and benefit arrangement. Brian Hicks was the plan
administrator and trustee.  Trojan Horse retained Lichter, which
held itself out as experts in performing audits of Employee
Benefit Plans.

Steven Malinowski was employed by Trojan Horse as a
Manager/Supervisor at its Bethpage, New York facility. James E.
Miley, Ray Dotzler, Andrew L. Frantz, and Wayne P. McMillenwere
were employed as Trojan Horse truck drivers. Lichter is a Maryland
limited liability company that provides certified public
accounting and business consulting services.

The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, suing the
defendants for breach of fiduciary and statutory duties, for
violating Section 406(a), under Employee Retirement Income
(ERISA). Lichter moved to dismiss the complaint, or for summary
judgment. On May 16, 2014, Ascensus and Cambridge Investment moved
to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint, which
dismissed all claims against Ascensus and Cambridge Investment and
the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Lichter, and added a
negligent misrepresentation claim against Lichter.

Judge Quarles granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend the complaint. Cambridge Investment's
and Ascensus's motions to dismiss the complaint will be denied as
moot.

A copy of Judge Quarles's memorandum and opinion dated February
26, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/XoyZk4from Leagle.com


LITTLE GENERAL: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that a
Raleigh County worker filed a class-action complaint against her
former employer, alleging the company has consistently failed to
pay its former employees in a timely manner.


Tonya M. Adkins brought a lawsuit individually and on behalf of
similarly situated ex-employees against Little General Stores,
with headquarters in Union City, Tenn., in Raleigh Circuit Court
on Feb. 23.

The plaintiff gave the defendant notice of her resignation from
the local store branch in Beckley effective Oct. 10, 2014.
Stating that she allowed the prerequisite amount of time prior to
leaving, Adkins maintains that Little General Store breached its
duty and violated state law by not paying all of her wages under
the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act

According to the complaint, Little General failed to abide by
state employment law. The plaintiff requests appointment as class
representative and her attorneys as class counsel.  Ms. Adkins
seeks judgment and damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

She is represented in the case by Todd Bailess and Joy Mega of
Bailess Law of Charleston; and Rodney Smith and Jonathan Marshall
-- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey & Glasser of
Charleston.  The case has been assigned to Judge John A.
Hutchison.

Raleigh Circuit Court case number: 15-C-129


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Goray" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
James And Susan Goray, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves
and all persons similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00596 (D. Ariz., April 2, 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. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168.  It is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
      Stephen L. Weber, Esq.
      Michael J. White, Esq.
      James W. Fleming, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      3200 N. Central Ave., Suite 2100
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 224-7800
      Facsimile: (602) 224-7801
      E-Mail: kkasdan@kasdansimonds.com
              sweber@kasdansimonds.com
              mwhite@kasdansimonds.com
              jfleming@kasdansimonds.com


MACY'S WEST: Judge Approves $3MM OT Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on March 16 overcame his misgivings about a late
increase in class size to approve Macy's West Stores Inc.'s deal
to pay $3 million to settle claims it deprived truck drivers and
their helpers of overtime by misclassifying them as independent
contractors.

The plaintiffs alleged that Macy's and the department store's
logistics management company Joseph Eletto Transfer Inc. had
misclassified as independent contractors more than 600 drivers and
helpers.


MARYLAND: MTA Faces Class Suit Over Mobility/Paratransit Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Robinson, writing for WBAL-TV 11, reports that four people
have brought a federal class-action lawsuit against the Maryland
Transit Administration over the agency's Mobility/Paratransit
Program.

Danielle Phelps is so frustrated with the MTA's
Mobility/Paratransit Program that she joined three others in
bringing a federal class-action lawsuit against the agency. By
law, Mobility is supposed to be an equivalent service to the
fixed-route system.

"It's hard to schedule your life, it's hard to make sure you get
to work on time, get to doctor's appointments on time.  A lot of
times, you have to cancel things because you are not going to get
there," Ms. Phelps said.

The Disability Law Center filed the lawsuit in January.  The
center said they are not looking for damages, they just want the
MTA to fix Mobility.

"What we have found is that people are having access issues either
because they are being denied eligibility inappropriately or
because they can't get through to Mobility on the phone to book a
ride or check on their late ride," Disability Law Center attorney
Kate Anderson said.

The lawsuit notes 12 calls Ms. Phelps made inquiring about her
ride. Her total hold time for those calls was five hours.

"Hold times, calling to schedule a ride (taking) 15-20 minutes,
rides being late or just saying they're not going to show up for a
couple of hours," Ms. Phelps said.

The lawsuit alleges the inappropriate denial of eligibility.

"For instance, people get told they are being denied service
because of other some usage of the fixed-route service and/or lack
of usage of Mobility," Ms. Anderson said.

Phillip Freeman, who had used Paratransit for three years, was
denied service when he went for re-certification.  He uses the
fixed-route system when he feels well, but as a dialysis patient,
that's not often.

"Because I'm not only not feeling well, my whole system is off,
equilibrium, everything, a lot of times.  So it would not be safe
for me to be out there," Mr. Freeman said.

Mr. Freeman has since been re-certified.

The Disability Law Center said anyone who has had similar
experiences with Mobility should call them.

The MTA would not comment on the lawsuit but said they have made
some improvements last year in the system, including updating
their phone system, making part-time reservation clerks full time
and adding a vendor.


MCCLINTON ENERGY: Conditional Cert. Granted in Part in "McCloud"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge David Alan Ezra of the Western District of
Texas, Midland Division, granted in part plaintiff's motion in the
case LARON McCLOUD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. McCLINTON ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C. and JAYCAR
ENERGY GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a JAYCAR FRAC PLUGS, Defendants, CV NO.
7:14-CV-120 (W.D. Tex.)

Laron McCloud was employed by the defendants as a plug technician
and later on was promoted to shop foreman. Although he was usually
dispatched out of Midland, Texas, he conducted the work directly
at the job sites of Defendants' clients. He alleges that
defendants paid plug technicians a fixed monthly salary,
supplemented with a nondiscretionary day bonus. At the start of
McCloud's tenure as a plug technician, his salary was $3,600 per
month, although his salary was later reduced to $3,240 per month
as part of a company-wide pay-cut for plug technicians, his salary
had risen to $4,950 per month right before he received his
promotion in 2014. Plaintiff alleges that he was never paid
overtime, even though he routinely worked 16 to 20 hour days, six
or seven days a week.

Plaintiff filed a complaint naming McClinton and Jaycar as
defendants. He asserted a failure to pay overtime claim under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, on
behalf of himself and all persons employed by defendants as plug
technicians from July 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiff seeks
unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages, as well as attorney's
fees and costs. On November 13, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for
conditional certification and notice to potential class members.

Senior District Judge Ezra granted in part plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and notice to potential class members.
A copy of Senior District Judge Ezra's order dated February 20,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/Fd07Oifrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
1001 S Harrison St, Ste 200
Amarillo, TX 79101-3434
Telephone: 806-331-1800

McClinton Energy Group, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by James H.
Birch -- Jim.Birch@klgates.com -- John M. Farrell --
john.farrell@klgates.com -- Caleb D. Wood --
Caleb.Wood@klgates.com -- at K & L Gates LLP


MICHIGAN: Court Finds "Jackson" Case Frivolous
----------------------------------------------
AARON JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL H. HEYNS et al., Defendants,
(W.D. Mich.) is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Court has granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996),
the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under
federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief.

"Applying these standards, Plaintiff's action will be dismissed
because the allegations either fail to state a claim or are
frivolous," ordered District Judge Janet T. Neff in his opinion
entered March 27, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/4A3XIsfrom Leagle.com.

Aaron Jackson #240101, plaintiff, Pro Se.


MICROSOFT INC: Faces Class Action Over $4,500 Xbox Bill
-------------------------------------------------------
Andy Weir, writing for Neowin, reports that From time to time, we
hear stories from across the world of parents discovering that
0their children have managed to rack up enormous bills on in-app
purchases using their parents credit cards.  The latest example is
quite a high profile case, involving Jeremy Hillman, Director of
Communications for the World Bank Group, whose son managed to
spend over $4,500 on digital content purchased on his Xbox before
his parents noticed.

In a post on Medium, Mr. Hillman explained how -- while checking
his credit card bill -- he spotted four charges of $109 each from
Microsoft in just two days.  While he initially believed it to be
a billing error related to his Office 365 subscription, it didn't
take long for his son to shed light on the matter.

In Hillman's words:

What he had been doing was purchasing FIFA player packs.  He
tearfully told me that he'd tried to buy a player pack for $100
but it hadn't worked and so he tried a couple more times.
Knowingly trying to spend $100 would have been bad enough but if
he was telling the truth then this was a one-off aberration -- and
Microsoft would surely compensate us for the failed purchases.
It was only when he contacted Microsoft to request compensation
that he was informed of "all the other charges" that had been
adding up: "With horror I started scrolling through pages of
charges -- $109, $109, $109 -- sometimes two a day.  More than
$4,500 of charges for virtual FIFA players going back several
months."

"If there's a lawyer that wants to start a class-action against
Microsoft, I'll happily sign up" Mr. Hillman said that he and his
wife "accept our responsibility in this.  We should have paid much
closer attention to his video gaming, and my son accepts his
responsibility and punishment."

But he claims that Microsoft bears some of the responsibility too,
and alleges that the company has mishandled the whole situation.

"Where was Microsoft in this? What was their responsibility?" he
asked, adding: ". . . the treatment we have had at the hands of
Microsoft has been appalling.  On the first live-chat we were
assured we'd be contacted within three days.  That never
happened."  He went on to explain that, after speaking with
someone else a week later, he had to wait several days more for
the case to be referred to a Microsoft 'escalation analyst', who
told him:

Our policy states that all purchases are final and non-refundable.
A purchase confirmation email was sent to email:

XXXX.XXXX@hotmail.com (my son) each time a purchase was made
because that is the email that was designated as a contact email
on the billing profile . . . you are responsible for any material
that a user of your Services account accesses or is denied access
to (including as a result of your use or non-use of Parental
Controls).  You acknowledge that use of our settings is not a
substitute for your personal supervision of minors that use your
Services account.

While Hillman acknowledged that he added his credit card details
to his son's account -- "I needed to do that to purchase the
original game ($60)" -- he said that he "had no knowledge that
$100 in-game purchases could even be made and no wish for my
credit card to be openly available for use for evermore" [sic].

In his post, he openly challenged Microsoft to answer his
questions "on behalf of the thousands and thousands of parents who
have fallen into this same situation":

With all the brilliance of your engineers and sophisticated
systems to protect data how hard could it be to put a realistic
ceiling on what can be spent on in-app purchases before the credit
card details and security code need to be re-entered? Most apple-
iTunes purchases need a password to be re-entered for each new
purchase.

How many users legitimately spend thousands of dollars on in-app
purchases and just how much usage would it actually take for you
to flag this as unusual behavior and require confirmation that the
purchase is legitimate? Banks and credit card companies regularly
do this? there can't be many reasons you don't.

But it's in his conclusion that Mr. Hillman pulls no punches,
alleging that "Microsoft calculates that actually taking a
responsible position that protects and safeguards its customers
would be too much of a dent to its profits."  He added that
Microsoft "will tell you there are all sorts of parental controls
available but back in the real world we all know that parents
often don't have the time or expertise to use these properly."

He claims that "if Microsoft wanted to spare thousands of parents
from frustration, anger and sometimes, serious financial
consequences then it could find a hundred ways to do it. It has
just chosen not to.  Microsoft made a decision based on profit
maximization and adhering to the minimum legal requirements."

He concluded his post by stating that "if there's a lawyer out
there that wants to start a class-action against Microsoft and
force them into compensation and adopting a better policy I'll
happily sign up."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: 9th Cir. Hears Oral Arguments in O'Bannon Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the Ed
O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA reaches
another milestone on March 17, when the sides engage in oral
argument before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in San Francisco.

It's part of a busy day on the court -- and in the courts -- for
the NCAA.  The association will be starting its Division I men's
basketball tournament in Dayton, Ohio, and participating in oral
argument in the appeal of another significant legal case: The
state of New Jersey's bid to legalize sports betting there.  That
fight, which also involves the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League
Baseball, was set to be heard by a three-judge panel of the 3rd
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on March 17.

Beginning at 4:00 p.m. ET, the NCAA would be trying to overturn
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's ruling in August that the
association's rules currently limiting athletes to scholarships
basically comprising tuition, room, board, books and fees
"unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws.  In
concert with her ruling, Judge Wilken also issued an injunction
that would heavily overhaul the NCAA's limits on what Bowl
Subdivision football and Division I men's basketball players can
receive for playing sports and for the use of the names, images
and likenesses in live television broadcasts, rebroadcasts of
games and video games.

Judge Wilken ruled that the NCAA will be able to cap the amount of
compensation football and men's basketball players receive, but
that that cap cannot be an amount that is less than the athletes'
cost of attending school.  The schools in the five major
conferences have subsequently voted to award athletes in any sport
scholarships that cover the cost of attendance.

However, Judge Wilken also decided to allow schools and
conferences to deposit money in trust for football and men's
basketball players that will become payable when they leave school
or their eligibility expires.

This new benefit could be put in place for both incoming and
returning athletes, beginning with the 2016-17 school year.  And
offers of such benefits could be made, beginning Aug. 1.

Here is a primer on the March 17 proceeding:

Q: What is the NCAA's basic case against Wilken's ruling?

A: In its written filings with the 9th Circuit, the NCAA has
primarily contended that Judge Wilken erred "by refusing to
follow" a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that the NCAA has relied upon
to preserve its amateurism system.  The 1984 ruling was in NCAA v.
Board of Regents, a case that was about control of college
football TV rights but the opinion included the statement that "in
order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA's)
'product,' athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend
class and the like."

The NCAA also contended antitrust laws do not apply to its limits
on athlete compensation because the limits "do not regulate
'commercial' activity.  Whatever economic consequences these rules
may have, their purpose is to define who is eligible to play"
college sports.  The NCAA contends that challenged rules "serve
the NCAA's mission of encouraging athletic endeavors as an
integral component of a broader college educational experience, in
the face of sometimes significant commercial pressures that could
undermine those athletic an educational experiences."

Q: Who are the judges, and why might that matter?

A: Sidney Thomas, Jay Bybee and Gordon Quist are the same judges
who handled an appeal from video game manufacturer Electronic Arts
in the lawsuit from former Arizona State and Nebraska football
player Sam Keller concerning the use of athletes' names, images
and likenesses.  That assignment resulted from the 9th Circuit
determining that the O'Bannon case is related to the Keller case.
(EA was a co-defendant with the NCAA in both cases until entering
into a proposed settlement.)

In the Keller case, the judges voted 2-1 against EA.

Although Thomas dissented, he noted that the rights of college
athletes are "remarkably restricted."  He went on to mention the
NCAA's hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, that most of
the money comes from TV and marketing rights fees, that few
college athletes will receive professional compensation and that
playing college football "can come at a terrible cost" in the form
of injuries.

Q: How much will the March 17 oral arguments matter in the appeals
judge's ruling?

A: Paul F. Eckstein, a Phoenix attorney who is not involved with
this case but has argued cases before the 9th Circuit, said that
because of the extensive case record and written arguments, the
judges likely will enter the courtroom "with more than an idea of
how the case will come out."

But the panel has granted each side the maximum 30 minutes for
argument, although it could go longer because oral argument is
likely to be less about prepared statements and much more about
the lawyers for each side facing a barrage of questions from the
three judges.

"I would bet a lot of money in this case that the panel will be
what's known as a hot panel," Mr. Eckstein said.  "You get about
30 to 90 seconds to describe the issues, and then it's nothing but
questions.

"Most people believe many cases are won at oral argument. More
cases are lost on oral argument than won."

Q: What will happen next and how could that impact college sports?

A: The judges almost certainly will take the case under
advisement, then issue a written ruling. It could be within weeks
or within months.  But Judge Wilken's ruling is scheduled to take
effect Aug. 1, and it could have a huge impact on athletics
departments' budgets and on the football and men's basketball
recruiting environments.  This is why the NCAA had asked the 9th
Circuit to expedite its handling of the case, which it has.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Still Faces Individual Concussion Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star reports that at a time when professional football and
hockey stars are suing their leagues for not doing enough to
protect players from the debilitating effects of concussions, it's
hard to believe it took until two weeks ago for the Greater
Toronto Hockey League to open its eyes and ban body checking -- if
only for the kids on its A-level teams.

The correlation between body checking and concussion has been
known for years.  A 2013 study of National Hockey League injuries,
in fact, found that more than 64 per cent of concussions in hockey
were caused by body checking.

Still, last year the GTHL defeated a ballot to ban body checking
immediately -- even for the kids in its A level, never mind its
double-A and triple-A teams.  And the motion the GTHL finally
passed means the ban won't be immediate for all A-level players.
Instead, it will phased in over four years, starting next season
with 12- and 13-year-old kids and gradually working up to 17-year-
olds.

The ban, weak as it is, is long overdue.  There has been no excuse
for not banning body checks for kids in A leagues, who, after all,
aren't being streamed for the NHL where the practice is still an
integral part of the game -- despite the increasing evidence of
brain injuries, memory loss and depression caused by concussions.
So shame on the GTHL for taking so long to put the ban in effect,
and for phasing it in so slowly, allowing its young players to
continue to take enormous risks with their brain health.
How big are the risks?

A 2014 study of Ontario teens who have suffered concussions and
other traumatic brain injuries found they are more likely to lead
troubled lives marked by suicide, criminal behavior and bullying.
(Sports such as hockey and soccer accounted for more than half the
brain injuries of the students studied.)

And the evidence on the long-term effects of head injuries is well
known.  The National Football League, which settled a class action
suit from former players suffering from the effects of concussion
for an estimated $1 billion, and is still facing individual suits,
expects about 6,000 former players to develop Alzheimer's or
moderate dementia in the upcoming decades.

Meanwhile, a study found that concussions cost the NHL $42.8
million a year in salary losses for games missed.  It did not take
into account health care costs and lost future earnings for NHL
players whose careers are cut short -- nor, notably, of the
youngsters who emulate them, according to its author, Dr. Michael
Cusimano.

Dr. Cusimano, a neurosurgeon at Toronto's St. Michael's Hospital,
doesn't think enough is being done at the NHL level to ban hits
and prevent concussions, never mind in kids' leagues: "As a
doctor, I have to say something about that because those people
end up being my patients."

Still, many hockey organizers continue to argue that body checking
needs to be part of the game, even for kids who are never going to
play at a professional level.  The GTHL motion to ban body-
checking in the A-league, in fact, only passed by a vote of 326 to
195.  In the end, the GTHL did the right thing by overruling those
arguing against banning body checks.


NEIL JONES: Court Adopts Findings, Junks "Valdez" Deal
------------------------------------------------------
In LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL JONES FOOD
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00519-AWI-SAB, (E.D.
Cal.), Plaintiffs Luis Valdez and Carolina Martinez, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, filed on December 23,
2014, a second unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a
class action settlement. The matter was referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 302.

On January 26, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and
Recommendations which was served on the parties and which
contained notice to the parties that any objections to the
Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within 14 days. The
Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations identifies a
legitimate concern regarding the fairness of the settlement
agreement. He notes that the settlement agreement provides for
seventy five percent of the undistributed funds to revert to
Defendant and a realistic possibility that much of the net
settlement fund would go unclaimed.

On February 9, 2015, Plaintiffs and Defendant filed Objections to
the Findings and Recommendations.  The parties object to the
Magistrate Judge's suggestion that two potential class members had
already found that the settlement was not adequate to compensate
them for their injuries as indicative that the settlement was not
fair, reasonable, and adequate. The parties also both contend that
they have raised sufficient common questions to satisfy Rule 23(a)
and 23(b) commonality and predominance requirements.  The
Defendant has indicated his willingness "to revising the . . .
Settlement to provide that unclaimed funds will be distributed to
a cy pres beneficiary."

In an order dated March 26, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/6oLt7lfrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge Anthony
W. Ishii held that the Findings and Recommendations, filed January
26, 2015, is adopted in full. The Plaintiff's Motion for
Certification of a Class and Preliminary Approval of the Class
Settlement is denied, and the matter is referred back to the
Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Luis Valdez, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Patrick Wilson, Law
Offices Of Dennis P. Wilson.

Carolina Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Patrick Wilson
-- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- Law Offices Of Dennis P. Wilson.

The Neil Jones Food Co., Defendant, represented by Andrea
Bednarova -- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster
Employment Law & Michael Eugene Wilbur --
mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law.


NESTLE PURINA: Pet Food Class Action Settlement Deadline Passes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Strickland, writing for WSB-TV, reports that thousands of pet
owners who blame Chinese-made dog treats for making their animals
ill are facing a crucial deadline.

Claims must be filed by April 1st to share in a class action
settlement of $6.5 million funded by Purina.  Purina imports
Waggin' Train jerky treats.

Jan Mackoff of Woodstock is convinced Purina's treats lead to the
acute illness that claimed her ten year old dog in April 2012.

"He was just very lethargic, wouldn't eat or anything," recalled
Mackoff.

She has filed a claim for $230 in veterinary bills.

"Money doesn't bring your dog back," she said.

While admitting no wrongdoing, Purina says the settlement will
allow dog owners to move on.

The company's treats returned to the shelves last year after a
2013 recall.  Purina says it now has a single supplier and only
one manufacturer making the treats.

The FDA put out new figures less than a month ago showing more
than 1,000 canine deaths and more than 5,800 illnesses are blamed
on Chinese treats.

There is still no proof the treats are to blame.


NEW GENERATION FUSION: Stipulation for Dismissal Stricken Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul G. Byron of the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case PHU
THANH TRAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NEW GENERATION FUSION RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, MING YU
BEN, and TZU Y. CHEUNG, Defendants, CASE NO. 6:14-Cv-572-ORL-40DAB
(M.D. Fla.)

The plaintiff Thanh Tran worked as a server for a Hibachi buffet-
style restaurant operated by the defendants in Altamonte Springs
Florida. Plaintiff initiated a putative class action lawsuit
against defendants for the recovery of back wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219.  The
parties subsequently filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with
Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii), but their joint motion failed to indicate whether
they had settled their dispute.

On January 14, 2015, the court ordered the parties to advice as to
whether there was a settlement and, if so, to submit the
appropriate paperwork for the Court's review.  Plaintiff asked the
Court to reconsider its January 14, 2015 order, arguing that the
Court no longer has jurisdiction over this matter due to the
parties' stipulation of dismissal.

Judge Byron denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
incorporated memorandum of law and the parties' joint stipulation
for dismissal is stricken. The parties were directed to file a
joint motion for approval of settlement agreement by March 26,
2015.

A copy of Judge Byron's order dated March 12, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/fNewROfrom Leagle.com

Phu Thanh Tran, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Carlos V. Leach --
cleach@forthepeople.com -- at Morgan & Morgan, PA

New Generation Fusion Restaurant Group, LLC, a Florida for Profit
Limited Liability Company doing business as Koywan Buffet,
Defendant, represented by Christopher A. Pace ---
cpace@schwartzlawfirm.net -- David H. Spalter --
webmail.dspalter@schwartzlawfirm.net -- Jill Steinberg Schwartz --
webmail.jschwartz@schwartzlawfirm.net -- at Jill S. Schwartz &
Associates, PA

Ming Yu Ben, Individually, Defendant, represented by Christopher
A. Pace --- cpace@schwartzlawfirm.net -- David H. Spalter --
webmail.dspalter@schwartzlawfirm.net -- Jill Steinberg Schwartz --
webmail.jschwartz@schwartzlawfirm.net -- at Jill S. Schwartz &
Associates, PA

Tzu Y. Cheung, Individually, Defendant, represented by Christopher
A. Pace --- cpace@schwartzlawfirm.net -- David H. Spalter --
webmail.dspalter@schwartzlawfirm.net -- Jill Steinberg Schwartz --
webmail.jschwartz@schwartzlawfirm.net -- at Jill S. Schwartz &
Associates, PA


NEW JERSEY: 3rd Cir. Tosses Aruanno's Mandamus Petition
-------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: JOSEPH ARUANNO, Petitioner, NO. 14-4585, Mr. Aruanno,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for a writ of
mandamus in connection with the failure of the District Court to
rule on his pending motion to reopen Bagarozy, et al. v. Harris,
et al., D.N.J. No. 04-cv-03066.

Mr. Aruanno, who is civilly committed under the New Jersey
Sexually Violent Predator Act to the Special Treatment Unit
("STU") Annex in Avenel, New Jersey, is a plaintiff in a
consolidated class action alleging inadequate therapeutic
treatment and punitive conditions of confinement in New Jersey's
STU facilities.  This litigation began in 2001, with the filing of
a pro se complaint by plaintiff Raymond Alves, in Alves, et al. v.
Ferguson, et al., D.N.J. No. 01-cv-00789.

In 2004 and 2007, Mr. Aruanno, along with other similarly situated
plaintiffs, filed related actions based on substantially the same
allegations. See Bagarozy, et al. v. Harris, et al., D.N.J. No.
04-cv-03066; Hasher, et al. v. Corzine, et al., D.N.J. No. 07-cv-
01212. In 2008, after several years of discovery and settlement
negotiations, the related cases were consolidated for all purposes
under Alves. In 2012, a plaintiff class was certified, and the
parties reached a settlement agreement which was approved by the
District Court. The settlement was affirmed by the Court in March
2014.

On April 14, 2014, see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988),
Mr. Aruanno filed motions to reopen the Hasher and Bagarozy
actions. The motions were identical except for their case
captions.

Although more than ten months have passed since Mr. Aruanno's
motion to reopen Bagarozy was improperly filed on the inactive
docket in D.N.J. No. 04-cv-03066, only four months have passed
since the motion was transferred to the active docket in Alves.
Although this delay is of some concern, the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit concludes that it does not rise to the
level of a failure to exercise jurisdiction. In light of the
District Court's prompt resolution of Mr. Aruanno's motion to
reopen Hasher, and the understandable confusion regarding the
docketing of his motion to reopen Bagarozy, the Third Circuit is
confident that the District Court will rule on the pending motion
in short order. Accordingly, the Third Circuit denies the mandamus
petition. Mr. Aruanno's motions to expedite the petition are also
denied.

A copy of the Third Circuit's March 30, 2015 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/v1HIC1from Leagle.com.


NEW MIAMI, OH: Speed Camera Class Action Proceedings Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Denise G. Callahan, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that as
the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled, again, that speed cameras are OK
and a new state law takes effect essentially banning their use,
New Miami officials have asked the judge presiding over its speed
camera case to clarify his last ruling.

New Miami's speed cameras have been shut down since retired Butler
County Common Pleas Judge Michael Sage found them unconstitutional
a year ago.  After March 19, if the village wanted to resume the
use, the village police department would have to station a police
officer there to issue speeding tickets, according to the new
state law.  The village has collected about $1.8 million from
speeders.

Meanwhile, the high court announced on March 12 in a Cleveland
speed camera case that the administrative processes many
jurisdictions use are fine.  The court didn't write another
opinion, however, the justices merely issued a directive that they
were deciding Jodka v. Cleveland was based on the Toledo case
settled last year.

The New Miami case has bounced back and forth between the 12th
District Court of Appeals and the village's attorney, Wilson
Weisenfelder, who has again appealed the common pleas court's
decision certifying the case as a class action.

In February Judge Michael Oster, who took over Sage's bench
affirmed his predecessor's ruling on both the constitutional issue
and certifying the case as a class action.  New Miami essentially
asked Oster to overturn Sage's ruling that the speed catchers
violate a driver's right to due process based on an Ohio Supreme
Court decision in Walker v. Toledo that allow administrative
hearings.

Mr. Weisenfelder also asked Judge Oster to clarify whether the
plaintiffs still have a case at all.

"This court's decision and entry of Feb. 25, 2015, suggests the
court's decision and entry of March 11, 2014, remains totally
unaffected by the subsequent decision in Walker," Mr. Weisenfelder
wrote.  "(The) defendant seeks clarification as to whether Count 1
of (the) plaintiff's first amended complaint can proceed given the
Supreme Court's unequivocal validation of a municipality's home-
rule authority to adopt an administrative hearing process for
traffic law violations."

One of the plaintiffs attorneys, Charlie H. Rittgers, said
previously he fully expects the high court to rule for the
plaintiffs on the constitutional due process questions once they
are presented.  The cases that have gone to the high court so far
deal with different issues than those at hand locally.

"I hardly think it's going to be a big hurdle for us to jump in
order to prove it's facially unconstitutional because it denies
the motorists their due process rights," Mr. Rittgers said.
Since the law has now changed, the appellate court decisions will
now be needed in order to decide if the plaintiffs will or will
not be reimbursed.


NEW YORK, NY: Delays Installation of Cameras at Rikers Island Jail
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton, writing for Capital New York, reports that the de
Blasio administration has pushed back its timeline to intstall
cameras throughout the Rikers Island jail complex, according to
administration officials.

The mayor announced the new video surveillance system during a
November 2014 press conference, with plans to install the cameras
within 18 months.

When the mayor held a press conference to announce additional
reforms, the accompanying press release stated the cameras would
not be installed until February 2018.

Peter Thorne, a spokesman for the Department of Correction, said
approximately 1,000 additional cameras were found to be in need of
replacing after an initial review.  The department also decided on
a "phased process of installation by facility," rather than
installing all the cameras at once, "was safer and more effective
in ensuring security for inmates and staff."

Mr. Thorne said the department was moving ahead to replace "end-
of-life and non-working cameras," as well as installing new
cameras. By the end of 2016, according to Thorne, cameras will be
installed for "100 percent coverage" of the facilities young adult
population.

Last November, D.O.C. commissioner Joseph Ponte touted the
installation of more than 7,800 cameras throughout the facility.

"With the installation of these new cameras, we are creating a
safer and more secure physical environment, which is key to
enhancing the safety and transparency of the City's jails," Ponte
said in a statement at the time.

The lack of cameras at Rikers was specifically noted in a U.S.
Department of Justice report presented by U.S. Attorney Preet
Bharara's office in August 2014.  The government said its
investigation at the facility found guards often committed acts of
violence against inmates in areas without cameras, one of many
problems Mr. Bharara said contributed to a "deep-seated culture of
violence" at Rikers.

The report called for the facility to increase the number of
cameras, specifically in adolescent areas.

In late December of last year, Mr. Bharara's office joined an on-
going class-action lawsuit against by former Rikers inmates over
alleged abuse by corrections officers.  The city is currently in
settlement negotiations.


NVIDIA CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates 3 Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court is a joint motion to consolidate related actions
and require filing of a consolidated amended complaint submitted
by Plaintiffs in these cases ANDREW OSTROWSKI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA
CORPORATION and GIGABYTE GLOBAL BUSINESS CORPORATION D/B/A GIGA-
BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., Defendants. PEDRO SANTIAGO, Plaintiff,
v. NVIDIA CORPORATION; ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL; and
TIGERDIRECT, INC., Defendants. MARK ROUSHION, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA
CORPORATION and EVGA CORPORATION, Defendants, CASE NOS. 15-CV-
00760-CRB, 15-CV-00789-PSG, 15-CV-01102-DMR, (N.D. Cal.), and
joined in by Defendants NVIDIA Corporation, Asus Computer
International, Gigabyte Global Business Corporation d/b/a Giga-
Byte Technology Co. Ltd and TigerDirect, Inc.

The Consolidation Motion seeks consolidation of the following
three putative class actions filed on February 19 and 20 and March
9, 2015, which were filed in the Northern District of California
and have been or are in the process of being related to the Court:

* Ostrowski v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al., No. 15-cv-00760-CRB
* Santiago v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al., No. 15-cv-00789-PSG
* Roushion v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al., No. 15-cv-01102-DMR

In a stipulated order signed by District Judge Charles R. Breyer
on March 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/hFnY5Mfrom Leagle.com, the Court found each of the
actions meets the prerequisites for pre-trial consolidation under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The Court found that all
parties and the Court would benefit from the efficiency that would
result from consolidation. The parties collectively agree that the
cases should be consolidated for all purposes as part of Ostrowski
v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-cv-00760-CRB.

The consolidated action will be captioned:

In re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-
00760-CRB.
The docket in Ostrowski v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al., Case No.
15-cv-00760-CRB will constitute the Master Docket for this action.

Every pleading filed in the consolidated action will bear this
caption:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN
FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE: NVIDIA GTX 970 GRAPHICS CHIP LITIGATION This Document
Relates to:

The Plaintiffs must file a Consolidated Amended Complaint within
30 days after the entry of the Order, and the Defendants must file
responsive pleadings to the Consolidated Amended Complaint within
30 days after service, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties
and approved by the Court.

WHATLEY KALLAS LLP, ALAN M. MANSFIELD --
amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- San Francisco, CA.

WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- (To Apply Pro Hac Vice), New York,
NY.

WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB, Dennis G. Pantazis --
dgp@wigginschilds.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Robert J. Camp
-- rcamp@wigginschilds.com -- (To Apply Pro Hac Vice), D. G.
Pantazis, Jr. -- dgpjr@wigginschilds.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac
Vice), Birmingham, AL.

LOWE LAW FIRM, LLC, E. Clayton Lowe, Jr. -- clowe@claylowelaw.com
-- (To Apply Pro Hac Vice), Birmingham, AL, Attorneys for
Plaintiff Andrew Ostrowski.

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com --
Julia A. Luster -- jluster@bursor.com -- Walnut Creek, CA,

Scott A. Bursor, New York, NY Attorneys for Plaintiff Pedro
Santiago

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP, LAURENCE D. KING --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Linda Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Mario
M. Choi -- MChoi@kaplanfox.com -- San Francisco, CA.

KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP Frederic S. Fox -- ffox@kaplanfox.com
-- (To Apply Pro Hac Vice) David A. Straite --
dstraite@kaplanfox.com -- (To Apply Pro Hac Vice) New York, NY
WITES & KAPETAN, P.A., Marc A. Wites (To Apply Pro Hac Vice),
Lighthouse Point, FL, Attorneys for Plaintiff MARK ROUSHION.

ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFF LLP, Alexander K. TAlarides --
atalarides@orrick.com -- Robert P. Varian -- rvarian@orrick.com --
James N. Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- San Francisco, CA,
Attorneys for Defendants NVIDIA Corporation, Asus Computer
International, Gigabyte Global Business Corporation d/b/a Giga-
Byte Technology Co. Ltd, and TigerDirect, Inc.


ORGANO GOLD: Faces Class Suit Over Dangerous Mushroom in Coffee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Organo Gold coffee contains a mushroom with dangerous blood-
thinning properties unknown to consumers, a class claims in
Delaware court, reports Sean Kelly at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Marlin Johnson says he consumed one cup of Organo
Gold coffee a day for two weeks in March 2013, "unaware of the
product's dangerous side effects."

Though enticed by Organo's "representation of the purported health
benefits derived from Ganoderma Lucidum," Johnson says he has
since learned that "Ganoderma Lucidum is a natural blood thinner
that prevents a person's blood from clotting properly and causes
intestinal bleeding and platelet dysfunction."

"The packaging and/or labeling of Organo Gold products do not
contain warnings about these dangerous side effects," according to
the March 19 complaint Johnson filed in New Castle County Superior
Court.

Also known as Reishi, Johnson says Ganoderma Lucidum "is a bitter
hard mushroom commonly used in traditional Chinese medicine."

Organo Gold's Web site describes the mushroom in magical terms:
"Once upon a time there was a fungus -- an incredible mushroom
known as Ganoderma lucidum.  Ganoderma are a fantastic-looking
mushroom, resembling something supernatural, or straight out of a
fairy tale such as Alice in Wonderland."

Johnson says the product's dangerous side effects became known to
him after he underwent gastric bypass surgery in April 2013 and
soon began "vomiting blood and suffering from blood clots."

When Johnson's hemoglobin level dropped dangerously low, doctors
allegedly discovered that his consumption of Organo Gold coffee
was to blame.

"As a result, plaintiff had to be resuscitated with multiple blood
and platelet transfusions and undergo an emergency surgery," the
complaint states.

Johnson slams Organo for its failure to include on the coffee
box's "packaging and/or labeling . . . information about how much
Ganoderma Lucidum is in the product."

For "those with health conditions, or those undergoing surgical
procedures, the blood thinning properties and amount of Ganoderma
Lucidum in Organo Gold products is extremely important," he says.

Other Organo Gold products that tout Ganoderma mushrooms include a
green tea, plus OG Smile Toothpaste and G3 Premium Beauty Soap.

A resident of Florida, Johnson says an Organo Gold representative
sold him three boxes of coffee in Delaware.  The company and its
affiliates operate out of Nevada and Washington state, according
to the complaint.  The class seeks punitive damages for breach of
warranty, fraud, negligence and other claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip T. Edwards, Esq.
          MURPHY & LANDON
          1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 482-4381
          Toll Free: (866) 939-8100
          Facsimile: (302) 472-8135


PAYTIME INC: Judge Tosses Pennsylvania Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on March 13 tossed a pair of putative class actions
stemming from a data breach at Paytime Inc. that compromised the
personal information of workers whose employers contracted with
the payroll firm, ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to prove
their data had actually been misused.

In his order dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice,
Judge John E. Jones agreed with Paytime's argument that the
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to maintain their claims
because there was no evidence that the compromised personal and
financial data belonging to as many as 233,000 individuals had
been misused, or that such misuse was imminent.

"Plaintiffs do not allege that they have actually suffered any
form of identity theft as a result of the data breach -- to wit,
they have not alleged that their bank accounts have been accessed,
that credit cards have been opened in their names, or that unknown
third parties have used their Social Security numbers to
impersonate them and gain access to their accounts," the judge
wrote.  "In sum, their credit information and bank accounts look
the same today as they did prior to Paytime's data breach in April
2014."

In reaching his conclusion, the judge pointed to the precedent set
by the Third Circuit in the 2011 case Reilly v. Ceridian Corp., in
which the appellate court upheld the dismissal of a similar
putative class action brought by a law firm over a data breach
that involved factual allegations that Judge Jones found to be
"remarkably similar" to those in the instant action against
Paytime.

"Plaintiffs [in the Paytime case] have not alleged actual 'misuse'
of the data, which is the touchstone of the Reilly standard," the
judge wrote in his opinion on March 13.  "Reilly draws a clear
line in the sand in this context as to when a data breach becomes
a harm.  While some may argue that the line should be more
favorable to plaintiffs and could perhaps be drawn at the moment
the data is accessed, that is not the extant standard."

Judge Jones added that, while the standard for standing in data
breach class actions established by the Third Circuit and other
courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark 2013
decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which was also cited
by the judge in his ruling on March 13 -- may appear unreasonable
to plaintiffs who "feel that a wrong has clearly been committed,"
the line makes sense in light of the current breach environment.

"Although this stringent standard does leave . . .  the plaintiffs
to foot the bill for their preventive measure taken, the logic of
the doctrine is sound, and the application of it in the context of
the recent rash of data breach cases makes its wisdom all the more
clear," the judge wrote.

Given that hackers are "constantly seeking to gain access" to the
vast troves of consumer data that companies maintain and often are
able to circumvent the "best efforts and tremendous expense" taken
by companies to secure their systems, requiring there to be a
clear misuse of the data itself should be viewed as a reasonable
requirement, the judge concluded.

"For a court to require companies to pay damages to thousands of
customers, when there is yet to be a single case of identity theft
proven, strikes us as overzealous and unduly burdensome to
businesses," Judge Jones said.  "There is simply no compensable
injury yet, and courts cannot be in the business of
prognosticating whether a particular hacker was sophisticated or
malicious enough to both be able to successfully read and
manipulate the data and engage in identity theft."

The plaintiffs are represented by Gary F. Lynch and Edwin J.
Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet &
Kilpela LLP and Eric N. Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- and
Karen H. Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen LLP.

Paytime is represented by Claudia D. McCarron --
Claudia.McCarron@lewisbrisbois.com  -- and Kathryn C. Mellinger of
Lewis Brosbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

The cases are Storm et al. v. Paytime Inc. and Holt et al. v.
Paytime Inc., case number 1:14-cv-01138, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.


PERMANENT WORKERS: Faces "Portillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Portillo, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. Permanent Workers, LLC, Conrad Industries, Inc. and
Danny Cepero, Case No. 6:15-cv-01048 (W.D. La., April 2, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing labor
force to shipyards and oilfield shops and rigs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Has Announced Massive Write-Down of Assets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Brazil's Petroleo Brasileiro
announced a "staggering" write-down of its assets that are
actually the proceeds of a massive bribery scheme, shareholders
allege, building on earlier claims.


PFIZER INC: Judge Approves $400MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, Pete Brush and Max Stendahl, writing for Law360,
report that a New York federal judge on March 16 granted early
approval to a $400 million settlement ending a class action
lawsuit accusing Pfizer Inc. of misleading investors about illegal
off-label drug marketing, after attorneys revised notices to class
members clarifying details about the litigation.

U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signaled his preliminary
approval at a hearing in February, but ordered both sides to craft
a new opt-out notice that explains clearly how the case came to
its current stage.  A revised settlement notice filed earlier in
March included a new section on how to request exclusion from the
deal.

Judge Hellerstein had also cautioned that while the $400 million
overall payout was quite large, that small investors might not
recoup much given a recovery of 15 cents per share, less than the
$1.26 per share estimated by the plaintiffs.  While Pfizer
countered it calculated no damages, it noted that if fewer people
claim, the recovery for claimants will grow.

"At the court's request, we note that attorneys experienced in the
field estimate that as few as 20 percent of class members may
claim and as many as 85 percent may claim," the revised settlement
notice said.

The new language also mentioned that the plaintiffs' firm Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP valued its services at about $60 million.
Under the settlement terms, attorneys' fee requests cannot exceed
$93 million and expense requests top out at about $8 million.

Judge Hellerstein's order granting preliminary approval set a
final hearing for July 30.

The case stemmed from a wide-ranging government investigation into
Pfizer's off-label marketing practices and alleged payment of
kickbacks to physicians.  The company pled guilty in September
2009 to illegally marketing the anti-inflammatory drug Bextra as
part of a $2.3 billion settlement with U.S. authorities.

Investors say that Pfizer made misleading disclosures in marketing
four drugs: Bextra, which Pfizer voluntarily pulled off the market
in 2005 amid safety concerns; anti-psychotic treatment Geodon;
anti-epileptic treatment Lyrica; and antibiotic Zyvox. Pfizer also
concealed kickbacks to physicians to promote sales, the investors
claim.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Dowd, Henry Rosen,
Trig R. Smith -- trigs@rgrdlaw.com -- Jason A. Forge, Ryan A.
Llorens -- ryanl@rgrdlaw.com -- Ivy T. Ngo, Samuel H. Rudman,
Willow R. Radcliffe, Daniel J. Pfefferbaum and Matthew S. Melamed
of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Pfizer is represented by Steven M. Farina -- sfarina@wc.com --
Joseph G. Petrosinelli and Amanda MacDonald of Williams & Connolly
LLP.

The case is Jones et al. v. Pfizer Inc. et al., case number 1:10-
cv-03864, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.


PICNIC FOOD: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Mendoza, Nubia Martinez, and Yarid Juarez-Cardoso, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Picnic Food,
Corp. d/b/a Perla Picnic Food, Brigido Martinez, and Elvira
Apanjo, Case No. 1:15-cv-01805 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at 39-
13 13th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11218.

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


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Burkhardt" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Burkhardt, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00523
(W.D. Wash., April 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive,
personally-identifiable information and personal health
information.

Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in
Montlake Terrace, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Ide, Esq.
      IDE LAW OFFICE
      7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
      Mercer Island, WA 98040
      Telephone: (206) 625-1326
      E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: 312.750.1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
      KYROS LAW OFFICES
      17 Miles Road
      Hingham, MA 02043
      Telephone: (800) 934-2921
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com


PROPHASE LABS: Judge Narrows Claims in "Weisblum" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New
York, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the
case ELI WEISBLUM et al., Plaintiffs, v. PROPHASE LABS, INC. et
al., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-3587 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.)

The defendant Prophase Labs, Inc. is the manufacturer and
distributor of Cold-EEZE a homeopathic, over-the-counter cold
remedy product. Plaintiffs Eli Weisblum and James Loren Gibbs both
purchased Cold-EEZE. Weisblum purchased Cold-EEZE Lozenges in New
York in January 2014 after he heard defendants' media
advertisements and reviewed the product's packaging and labeling.
Specifically, he read on the package that Cold-EEZE are clinically
proven to reduce the severity and duration of the common cold and
that they would reduce the severity of his cold symptoms.  He
would not have purchased Cold-EEZE in the absence of such
representations. Like Weisblum, Gibbs would not have purchased
Cold-EEZE absent these representations.

Weisblum filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated on May 19, 2014, and Gibbs was added as a named plaintiff
in the Amended Complaint on August 4, 2014. Plaintiffs allege that
defendants' representations about the effectiveness of Cold-EEZE
are false. The complaint alleges violations of New York and
California consumer protection laws, violations of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq., breach of
express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

Judge Furman granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss.  A copy of Judge Furman's opinion and order dated
February 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/MvyK9f from
Leagle.com

Eli Weisblum, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Ignatius Marchese
-- jmarchese@bursor.com -- Neal Jamison Deckant --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com --
Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Frederick John Klorczyk --
fklorczyk@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

James Loren Gibbs, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Ignatius
Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Prophase Labs, Inc. and Theodore W. Karkus, Defendants,
represented by Eric F. Gladbach -- egladbach@reedsmith.com --
Jessica Kristen Shook -- jshook@reedsmith.com -- Robert D.
Phillips, Jr. -- rphillips@reedsmith.com -- Thomas A. Evans --
tevans@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP


PVH CORP: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Nelson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Nelson, on behalf of himself and of all others similarly
situated v. PVH Corp. d/b/a Tommy Hilfiger, Case No. 8:15-cv-00512
(C.D. Cal., April 2, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of sending automated blast marketing messages to
consumers' mobile phones in the form of Short Message Service
(SMS) text messages.

PVH Corp. is a California Corporation that operates an apparel
company, which owns brands such as Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein,
Van Heusen, IZOD, and Arrow.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent D. Howard, Esq.
      Gregory H. D. Alumit, Esq.
      HOWARD LAW, PC
      675 Anton Boulevard, First Floor
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 872-5925
      Facsimile: (888) 533-7310
      E-mail: vhoward@howardlawpc.com
              galumit@howardlawpc.com

         - and -

      David M. Arbogast, Esq.
      ARBOGAST LAW
      8117 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 530
      Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
      Telephone: (310) 477-7200
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0416
      E-mail: david@arbogastlawpc.com


QUIKSILVER INC: Faces "Stevens" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leiland Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., Andrew P. Mooney, and
Richard Shields, Case No. 2:15-cv-02432 (C.D. Cal., April 2,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Quiksilver, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
offices located at 15202 Graham Street, Huntington Beach,
California, which designs, develops, and distributes branded
apparel, footwear, accessories, and related products primarily for
men, women, and children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUIKSILVER INC: Faces "Stevens" 2nd Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leiland Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., Andrew P. Mooney, and
Richard Shields, Case No. 8:15-cv-00516 (C.D. Cal., April 2,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Quiksilver, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
offices located at 15202 Graham Street, Huntington Beach,
California, which designs, develops, and distributes branded
apparel, footwear, accessories, and related products primarily for
men, women, and children.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Accused of Selling Prevagen With False Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Quincy Bioscience sells
Prevagen with false claims that it's "clinically tested to support
brain function and memory," a class action claims in Contra Costa
County Court.


RANGE RESOURCES: Court Tosses Parrish's Bid to Remand Case
----------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2014, royalty owners of gas wells in Oklahoma filed
a class action captioned CHRIS PARRISH, JR. and MARK PARRISH,
Plaintiffs, v. RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION; RANGE RESOURCES MID
CONTINENT, LLC; RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY; and RANGE PRODUCTION
COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-14-01283-M, (W.D. Okla.).

Plaintiffs allege that defendants systematically underpaid royalty
on gas produced from these Oklahoma wells by unlawfully deducting
certain fees from the royalty payments. On November 17, 2014,
defendants removed this case alleging jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand alleging the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction.

After carefully reviewing plaintiffs' allegations in their
Petition and defendants' notice of removal, Chief District Judge
Vicki Miles-LaGrange found that defendants have shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in
this case may exceed five million dollars. Because plaintiffs have
not shown that a recovery for that amount is legally impossible,
the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this
matter.

Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and
Brief in Support.

A copy of the Court's April 1, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/ejSdmzfrom Leagle.com.

Chris Parrish, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Angela C Jones, Park
Nelson Caywood Jones LLP, Bradley Earl Beckworth --
bbeckworth@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, Jeffrey J
Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix Patterson & Roach
LLP, Kerry W Caywood -- kcaywood@pncj.com -- Park Nelson Caywood &
Park, Patranell Britten Lewis --  plewis@barneslewis.com -- Barnes
& Lewis LLP, Robert N Barnes --  rbarnes@barneslewis.com -- Barnes
& Lewis LLP, Susan R Whatley -- susanwhatley@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix
Patterson & Roach LLP, Michael Burrage --
mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com -- Whitten Burrage, Reggie N
Whitten -- rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com -- Whitten Burrage &
Trey N Duck, III, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP.

Mark Parrish, Plaintiff, represented by Angela C Jones, Park
Nelson Caywood Jones LLP, Bradley Earl Beckworth, Nix Patterson &
Roach LLP, Jeffrey J Angelovich, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, Kerry
W Caywood, Park Nelson Caywood & Park, Patranell Britten Lewis,
Barnes & Lewis LLP, Robert N Barnes, Barnes & Lewis LLP, Susan R
Whatley, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, Michael Burrage, Whitten
Burrage, Reggie N Whitten, Whitten Burrage & Trey N Duck, III, Nix
Patterson & Roach LLP.

Range Resources Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard B
Noulles -- rnoulles@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals, Andrew D Sims
-- asims@hfblaw.com -- Harris Finley & Bogle PC, Michael V
Fitzpatrick -- mfitzpatrick@hfblaw.com -- Harris Finley & Bogle PC
& Tammy D Barrett -- tbarrett@gablelaw.com -- Gable & Gotwals.

Range Resources Mid-Continent LLC, Defendant, represented by
Richard B Noulles, Gable & Gotwals, Andrew D Sims, Harris Finley &
Bogle PC, Michael V Fitzpatrick, Harris Finley & Bogle PC & Tammy
D Barrett, Gable & Gotwals.

Range Production Company, Defendant, represented by Richard B
Noulles, Gable & Gotwals, Andrew D Sims, Harris Finley & Bogle PC,
Michael V Fitzpatrick, Harris Finley & Bogle PC & Tammy D Barrett,
Gable & Gotwals.

Range Production Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard B
Noulles, Gable & Gotwals, Andrew D Sims, Harris Finley & Bogle PC,
Michael V Fitzpatrick, Harris Finley & Bogle PC & Tammy D Barrett,
Gable & Gotwals.


SA GEAR: Sued in Ill. Over Defective Timing Chains Tensioners
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Williamson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. S.A. Gear Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00365 (S.D. Ill., April 2, 2015), arises out of the defective
timing chain tensioner that is used as a replacement part in a
certain Chrysler engine, which when properly installed and used,
the Part causes damages to the engine, causing loss of pressure,
timing chain chatter, and catastrophic engine failure.

S.A. Gear Company, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that
manufactures motor vehicle parts and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory J. Pals, Esq.
      John J. Driscoll, Esq.
      DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 N. Broadway, Suite 2440
      St. Louis, IL 63102
      Telephone: (314) 932-3232
      Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
      E-mail: greg@thedriscollfirm.com
              john@thedriscollfirm.com


SAFENAME: Wins Multi-Complainant, Multi-Domain UDRP Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------
Safenames, the global leader in enterprise brand protection, on
March 16 announced a multi-complainant UDRP win/recovery involving
New gTLDs in a dispute with the registrant that lasted nearly a
year.  In total, Safenames recovered 18 domain names for a total
of 15 different trademark holders (entities), in just two cases.
Safenames was originally alerted that the registrant in these
cases was infringing on another, initial domain (Nvidia.email).
They filed and received a winning decision from CAC for that
domain in just two months.  While Safenames legal team was in the
process of researching this case they uncovered additional
instances of this practice by this registrant.  Safenames was
diligent in launching a campaign to alert various trademark
holders of this practice, which ultimately led to the most recent,
multi-complainant UDRP win.

This most recent win is significant for Safenames, as multiple
complainant cases are much rarer than single complainant cases,
and present a unique set of challenges.  The biggest challenge is
often unifying corporate entities because corporations/enterprises
typically operate alone to promote and protect their own brand(s).
Safenames' most complex internal challenge, according to
Micah Ogilvie, Chief Legal Counsel for Safenames, "was to ensure
that every argument was relevant to all entities involved, in only
5,000 words, and to keep costs down.  As long as we are able to do
these two things effectively, we often find that companies are
willing to set aside any intrinsic differences and work together
with us to complete the task at hand."  Further, Safenames has
many multi-complainant case wins under their belt.  "Not only do
we have extensive knowledge of the UDRP, I would say we are
pioneers in cases involving multiple complainants following our
English Premier league case in 2009, which is well documented and
used as UDRP precedent," said Mr. Ogilvie.

As part of the most recent win, Safenames successfully recovered
domain names for Molton Brown Limited, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG,
GlaxoSmithKline, Vertu Corporation Limited, Lyondellbasell
Industries, VKR Holding A/S, G4S Plc, Logitech International SA,
Auto Trader Limited, Ryanair Limited, Associated Newspapers
Limited, Wowcher Limited, Savills plc, Red Letter Days Limited,
and Oxfam International, to name a few.  This was the first ever
class action ("Multiple Complainant") UDRP involving New gTLDs.
Mr. Ogilvie worked closely with each entity involved, filed the
UDRP with the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) against the
registrant, and was able to demonstrate that the registrant had
registered each of the domain names in bad faith and wa2s creating
"confusion" for each of the brands/TMs, profiting from and acting
in bad faith in his registration(s).  As a result, the domains
were transferred back to the corresponding Complainants.

Miss. Natasha Sharma, Head of Brand Protection services said, "We
are very pleased that Safenames was able to win this dispute for
multiple trademark owners.  This pro-active approach plays a big
part in Safenames brand enforcement strategies where multiple
domain names can be retrieved via a single dispute".

Review the full CAC decision:

http://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=100890
http://udrp.adr.eu/adr/decisions/decision.php?dispute_id=100891

                        About Safenames

Safenames is the global leader in enterprise brand protection,
specializing in domain management and online trademark enforcement
for companies across the globe.  The company is headquartered in
Milton Keynes, England with regional offices in Vienna, Virginia,
and Brisbane.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Arbiter Denies Bid for Repossession Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Michael Corkery, writing for The
New York Times, report that Charles Beard, a sergeant in the Army
National Guard, says he was on duty in the Iraqi city of Tikrit
when men came to his California home to repossess the family car.
Unless his wife handed over the keys, she would go to jail, they
said.

The men took the car, even though federal law requires lenders to
obtain court orders before seizing the vehicles of active duty
service members.

Sergeant Beard had no redress in court: His lawsuit against the
auto lender was thrown out because of a clause in his contract
that forced any dispute into mandatory arbitration, a private
system for resolving complaints where the courtroom rules of
evidence do not apply.  In the cloistered legal universe of
mandatory arbitration, the companies sometimes pick the arbiters,
and the results, which cannot be appealed, are almost never made
public.

That is the experience for many Americans who are contractually
obligated to resolve their disputes with investment advisers or
lenders in this way.  But it is supposed to be different for the
troops who are deployed abroad, say military lawyers, state
authorities and Pentagon officials.

Over the years, Congress has given service members a number of
protections -- some dating to the Civil War -- from repossessions
and foreclosures.

Efforts to maintain that special status for service members has
run into resistance from the financial industry, including many of
the same banks that promote the work they do for veterans.  While
using mandatory arbitration, some companies repeatedly violate the
federal protections, leaving troops and their families vulnerable
to predatory lending, the military lawyers and government
officials say.

"Mandatory arbitration threatens to take these laws and basically
tear them up," said Col. John S. Odom Jr., a retired Air Force
lawyer now in private practice in Shreveport, La.  High-ranking
Defense Department officials agree, telling Congress that "service
members should maintain full legal recourse."

Last year, a bipartisan bill that would have allowed service
members to opt out of arbitration and file a lawsuit met with
opposition from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street's
major trade group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, or Sifma.

"While we remain very supportive of the troops, we see no
empirical or other evidence that service members are being harmed
by or require relief from arbitration clauses," Kevin Carroll, a
managing director and associate general counsel at Sifma, said in
a statement.

The trade groups' members include a roster of financial companies
that have trumpeted their hiring of veterans and their initiatives
for troops returning home from war.  They include JPMorgan Chase,
the nation's largest bank, and USAA, which caters almost
exclusively to service members and their families.

Many banks contend -- as do companies in other industries -- that
arbitration is a more efficient and less costly way to handle
disputes.  A spokesman for USAA said that the company supported
the bill because it would have been "good public policy for the
entire industry."  Still, USAA uses mandatory arbitration clauses
in many of its financial service contracts with service members.

The clauses clamp down on frivolous litigation, including class-
action lawsuits, and the cost savings allow companies to provide
more affordable products to consumers, the trade organizations
say.

In lobbying against the bill, several financial industry groups
and a large phone company visited with the staff of Senator
Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who sponsored the
legislation along with Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat.

The trade groups told Mr. Graham's office that they were already
working to make their arbitration procedure more accommodating to
service members, according to a person briefed on those
discussions who would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

"The message was, 'Let us fix this internally,' " the person said.
"Don't upset the apple cart with a new law."

The bill never made it out of committee last year, though
Mr. Graham plans to reintroduce it this year.

Consumer lawyers say it is easy to understand why the industry is
lobbying against an exemption for service members: One carve-out
from mandatory arbitration could bolster broader calls to excise
the clauses from contracts altogether.

"If you admit that these are bad for the military, then it follows
that they are bad for consumers much more broadly," said
Deepak Gupta, a lawyer in Washington who has represented consumers
in cases about arbitration before the Supreme Court.

The main law challenged by mandatory arbitration clauses is the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or S.C.R.A., military officials
say. Under the law, active duty military members and their
families are protected from repossession and foreclosure without a
court order.  It allows them to terminate any real estate or auto
lease when their military orders require them to do so.  And it
requires lenders to reduce the interest rates on any loans to 6
percent.

Violations of those protections are widespread, according to a
review by The New York Times of court records and loan contracts.

The Government Accountability Office, for example, found in 2012
that financial institutions had failed to abide by the law more
than 15,000 times.  In February, Santander Consumer USA reached a
$9.35 million civil settlement with the Justice Department over
accusations that the lender illegally seized cars from members of
the military for a period of nearly five years until 2013.

Arbitration is often stacked against service members from the
start.  Some of the contracts, for example, offer two possible
sites for a hearing: one city on the West Coast and another on the
East Coast.  Consumer lawyers say the companies invariably pick
the city that is farther away from where the customer lives.

But the real power of the clauses, the lawyers say, is that they
make it virtually impossible for consumers to band together in a
broad legal challenge.

Instead, companies can battle claims one by one.  And alone, few
consumers can afford to take on companies at all, especially if
their disputes revolve around a few hundred dollars.  Debt
collectors promoted such benefits in an industry newsletter,
describing mandatory arbitration as a "silver bullet" that could
"successfully remove the matter from court and likely end the case
in its entirety."

When Matthew Wolf, a captain in the Army Reserve, was deployed to
Afghanistan a year into a 39-month car lease, he turned in the
car, an Infiniti, to the dealership and asked for a refund of $400
he had put down toward future monthly payments -- his right under
the S.C.R.A.

Nissan, which is the parent company of Infiniti, balked at Captain
Wolf's request, refusing to give him back the money.  Captain Wolf
and his lawyer, Thomas Booth Jr., sued Nissan on behalf of service
members facing similar predicaments.  But because of an
arbitration clause in his lease, the lawsuit was dismissed and his
dispute was sent to arbitration.

In arbitration, he was told that the fees for the case could total
$8,200 -- or nearly 21 times what he said he was owed.

In a statement, a spokesman for Nissan's Infiniti unit said, "We
continue to work with Mr. Wolf to resolve his complaint."

Despite arguments that arbitration is more efficient and less
expensive than court, military lawyers say cases can drag on for
years.

It took more than four years after Sergeant Beard's car was
repossessed before an arbiter ruled on his case against Santander
Consumer.  Although Sergeant Beard was awarded $6,500, the arbiter
denied his requests that Santander compensate him and his family
for the wrongful repossession.

For Sergeant Beard, the real issue is all the other troops who
have been victimized.

"I tried to fight for everybody, but it only ended up with me,"
said Sergeant Beard, who adds that such repossessions "will
destroy soldiers in combat by putting them in a position where
they can't help their loved ones."

In a statement, a spokeswoman for Santander Consumer said that
since 2012, "the lender has used systemic controls to prevent
improper repossessions of vehicles," including the vehicles of
military members protected under the S.C.R.A.

In the action against Santander late in February, Justice
Department officials emphasized that the auto lender used an
arbitration clause to undercut a class action brought by a
military member whose car was seized.

That soldier, according to people briefed on the matter, was
Sergeant Beard.


SARKU JAPAN: Faces Unpaid Wages Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that teriyaki and sushi
chain Sarku Japan franchises and affiliates were hit with a
putative class action in California state court on March 13
alleging they denied workers meal breaks, minimum and overtime
wages, and engaged in other allegedly illegal payroll policies.

Plaintiff Albin Juan Carlos Rivera Nunez launched the proposed
class action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that Sarku
Japan, Sar California Holdco Inc., Sar Figueroa Food Inc. and
other franchised locations have failed to provide their California
employees required meal and rest periods or to pay overtime and
minimum wages.

In addition, the defendants failed to pay workers timely wages or
all the wages due to them once they quit or were terminated,
failed to indemnify employees for expenditures they incurred as
part of their duties, and forced employees to work off the clock,
according to the complaint.

"This action involves common questions of law and fact to the
potential class because the action focuses on defendants'
systematic course of illegal payroll practices and policies," the
complaint said.

Mr. Nunez, a California resident described in the complaint simply
as a former employee of the defendants, is seeking to represent a
class of all current and former nonexempt employees of the
defendants in California to recover unpaid earned wages from
miscalculated overtime, illegal meal and rest period calculations
and other violations going back a period of four years from the
filing of the lawsuit.

"As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of
defendants, plaintiff and class members have suffered, and
continue to suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet
unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the
jurisdiction of this court," the suit says.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of California Labor
Code, the Industrial Wage Commission wage order and California's
Business and Professions Code.

The Sarku Japan restaurants are teriyaki and sushi quick-service
restaurants with locations across the U.S.

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew J. Matern and Roy K. Suh
of Matern Law Group.

The case is Nunez v. Sar California Holdco Inc. et al., case
number BC575506, in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles.


STUDENT LOAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Dugger" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Dugger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Student Loan Service US, Case No. 2:15-cv-02422 (C.D.
Cal., April 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on the Class members' cellular
telephone.

Student Loan Service US is in the business of providing consumers
with finding the appropriate student loan for undergraduate study.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


TATTLE TAIL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wall" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsi Wall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tattle Tail, Inc. d/b/a Tattletale Lounge, Denis G.
Kaufman, and Richard R. Schronce, Case No. 1:15-cv-00985 (N.D.
Ga., April 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel located at 2075 Piedmont Rd
NE, Atlanta, GA 30324.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Ronald Bridgers, Esq.
      Michael Alan Caldwell, Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS & FITZPATRICK, LLC
      101 Marietta Street, NW
      3100 Centennial Tower
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3150
      E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              michaelcaldwell@dcbflegal.com


TELETECH HOLDINGS: S.D. Ohio Court Conditially Certifies Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Walter H. Rice of the Southern District of Ohio
ruled on plaintiffs' motions in the case TINA ATKINSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 3:14-CV-253 (S.D. Ohio)

Defendants TeleTech Holdings, Inc. and TeleTech@Home, Inc. provide
customer management services for a wide variety of large
corporations. Defendant Kenneth Tuchman is an owner, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of Teletech.

Plaintiffs Tina Atkinson, Grace Bonnie, Jessica Frazier, Florence
Gianforte, Richard Hall, Rachel Marshall, Shelly Primus and Karen
Stout are, or were, employed by TeleTech as Customer Service
Agents (CSAs).

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants have violated federal and state
wage-and-hour laws by failing to compensate them for off the clock
time spent booting up their computers, completing reports, and
logging in and out of software programs, an average of 25-40
minutes per shift. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants
violated the law by failing to compensate them for mid-shift time
spent disconnected from the various software programs, an average
of 45 minutes per shift. Plaintiffs seek recovery, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, of all unpaid regular
and overtime compensation to which they are entitled, along with
liquidated damages. They also assert claims for unjust enrichment
and breach of contract.

Plaintiffs filed a Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional
Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). They asked the court
to conditionally certify a proposed class consisting of "all
current and former hourly home-based Customer Service Agents who
worked for defendants at any time during the three years preceding
the filing of the complaint." They also filed a motion for
equitable tolling.

Judge Rice sustained in part plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery Motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to
Potential Opt-in Plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
He conditionally certifies a class consisting of "all current and
former hourly home-based Customer Service Agents who worked for
defendants at any time during the three years preceding the date
of this Decision and Entry.

Defendants were directed to identify all potential opt-in
plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable
format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
current and former employees who fall within the class definition.
The parties were directed to email a jointly-approved, revised
draft of the Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit, in Microsoft word
format, to rice chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov, for the Court's final
approval. Plaintiffs' Motion for Equitable Tolling is overruled
without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Rice's decision and entry dated February 26, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/MvwWPKfrom Leagle.com


TEXAS: Fifth Circuit Upholds "Dunn" Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
Shawn L. Dunn, Texas prisoner # 1686724, and additional
plaintiffs, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants had
violated their constitutional and civil rights in connection with
their prosecutions, convictions, and continued incarceration and
seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. The
district court severed the claims and opened a new case for each
plaintiff. Only Dunn's claims remained in the instant litigation.
Dunn was ordered by the district court on two occasions to file an
amended complaint setting forth details of his own claims and the
district court warned him that failure to file an amended
complaint would result in dismissal. Rather than amend his
complaint as ordered, Dunn continued to file pleadings on behalf
of the group of plaintiffs and he filed a motion for class
certification.

The district court denied the motion for class certification and,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), dismissed the
complaint without prejudice for want of prosecution. Dunn appealed
these rulings, and contended in a conclusional fashion, that class
certification is warranted. He also filed motions seeking the
appointment of counsel, an emergency phone conference, and class
certification.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed
the judgment of the district court, saying, among other things,
that Dunn provided the court a difficult to decipher argument.
All outstanding motions are denied.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's March 30, 2015 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/MiQP4X from Leagle.com.

The case is SHAWN L. DUNN, Member of Texas Courts/Conspiracy
against the People.org, Class Rep., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
HONORABLE TRENTIN D. FARRELL, Individually and in His Official
Capacity; HONORABLE WAYNE SALVANT, Individually and in His
Official Capacity; HONORABLE BROCK THOMAS, Individually and in His
Official Capacity; HONORABLE ROBERT NEWSOM, Individually and in
His Official Capacity; HONORABLE GRACIE LEWIS, Individually and in
Her Official Capacity; ET AL, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-50387.


TEXAS BRINE: Special Master Connected to Plaintiff Attorney
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that the
special master handling the settlement in the Bayou Corne sinkhole
class action lawsuit has served as a lawyer for Calvin Fayard, the
lead plaintiff attorney in the matter.

Last April, U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey appointed Alton Shelby
Easterly III to serve as the special master handling the
settlement in the Bayou Corne sinkhole case.

In the case, Texas Brine agreed to a $48.1 million settlement
after an underground salt dome collapsed creating a still growing
sinkhole that threatens to swallow up Bayou Corne, the lake
community constructed over it.  Under the settlement, Texas Brine,
which had been running the brine mining operation in the area that
led to the collapse, essentially agreed to buy out all homeowners
in the affected area.

Court records show that Easterly, who like Mr. Fayard is from the
tiny community of Denham Springs, served as attorney for Calvin
Fayard in a 2005 civil suit.  The law offices of the two men are
about a half-mile from each other.

Judge Zainey appointed Easterly without acknowledgement of the
potential conflict of interest.

As special master, Mr. Easterly has been in charge of
administering the Bayou Corne settlement, a task that includes
making recommendations regarding the percentage of the award that
will go to Fayard and the three other attorneys who led the class
action.

According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, special masters
should be held to the same standard of impartiality as judges.

"A master must not have a relationship to the parties, attorneys,
action, or court that would require disqualification of a judge
. . . unless the parties, with the court's approval, consent to
the appointment after the master discloses any potential grounds
for disqualification," federal rules state.

Court records show that Easterly represented Fayard and his law
partner D. Blayne Honeycutt, also a plaintiff's attorney in the
Bayou Corne case, when they were sued in Orleans Parish Civil
District Court in 2005.  In that case, a former law associate of
theirs accused the two of withholding pay in a class action
lawsuit involving the diet drug Fen-Phen.

Mr. Fayard said while he remembers the case involving his former
law associate, he does not remember that Easterly was his defense
lawyer.

"If you were to ask me to comment on whether Mr. Easterly had ever
represented me as a attorney in a lawsuit I would have had to say
no, or certainly not to my recollection," he said.

Mr. Fayard downplayed the relationship.  He said that any
potential conflict of interest would be up to Judge Zainey and the
attorneys for Texas Brine to determine.

"[Easterly] serves at the pleasure of the court.  So I don't
appoint him, I don't dictate his work," Mr. Fayard said.  "I think
the defendants would have looked at his credentials and examined
his potential conflicts or anything else.  I don't see this as a
conflict."

Nothing in the court record indicates whether the other attorneys
involved in the case or even the judge knew that Messrs. Easterly
and Fayard have had a longstanding relationship.

Mr. Easterly recommended that Mr. Fayard and three other lead
plaintiffs' lawyers receive $12 million in legal fees, plus
expenses for their role in handling the suit.  That figure, which
comes on top of the 35-40 percent contingency fees lawyers already
set to receive for representing individual class members,
comprises 28 percent of the total damage award, causing some
observers and class members to criticize it as excessive.

In a brief to Judge Zainey, Mr. Easterly justified his fee
recommendation.

"[I]t is my observation that Class Counsel were confronted with an
extraordinary dynamic -- the Bayou Corne Sinkhole -- which caused
evacuation of the Class Area, uprooting families from each other
and their community, with an overwhelming set of 'unknowns,' not
the least of which was the uncertain future of their homes,"
Mr. Easterly wrote.  "Class Counsel undertook the equivalent of
four plus years effort and incurred enormous expense with no
guarantee of return.  They had to coalesce and come together,
almost as if forming a new law firm, agree on a plan, divide the
work, and get it done."

According to workload figures cited by Easterly, the $12 million
fee works out to a rate of about $1,300 an hour for Mr. Fayard and
the three other supervising lawyers.

As special master, Mr. Easterly will eventually make a
recommendation on his own pay, for which he has earmarked about
$1.4 million for in addition to associated expenses.
Traditionally, the decision on how much to pay the special master
in a mass tort case must be ratified by the supervising attorneys.

Judge Zainey set March 16 as the deadline for objecting to the $12
million fee recommendation.


TIME WARNER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Consumer Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omar A. Mohamed, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Time Warner Inc., and Adecco Medical & Science
Staffing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02589 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015),
seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of procuring
background checks on employees and job applicants without first
providing accurate disclosures and obtaining a valid
authorization.

Time Warner Inc. has a principal place of business at One Time
Warner Center, New York, NY 10019. It markets itself as a global
leader in media and entertainment with businesses in television
networks and film and TV entertainment that uses its industry-
leading operating scale and brands to create, package and deliver
high-quality content worldwide on a multi-platform basis.

Adecco Medical & Science Staffing, Inc. owns and operates an
employment staffing agency with a principal place of business at
175 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, NY 11747.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam G. Singer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER
      14 S. Main Street, Suites 4 & 5
      New City, NY 10956
      Telephone: (212) 842-2428
      Facsimile: (209) 844-2428
      E-mail: asinger2@alumni.law.upenn.edu

         - and -

      James A. Francis, Esq.
      John Soumilas, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, 19th Floor
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
      E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
              jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


TIME WARNER: Cal. Appeals Court Won't Revive "Fischer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin of the Court of Appeals
of California, Second District, Division Eight affirmed the
judgment of dismissal of the appealed case entitled SHERRY FISCHER
et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC. et
al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B254863 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Time Warner Cable Inc. provides cable television throughout
several Southern California counties. Time Warner buys content
from programmers, who require Time Warner to offer each
programmer's channels in a single bundle as part of Time Warner's
enhanced basic cable programming tier. In 2011, Time Warner paid
the Lakers $3 billion for the licensing rights to televise Lakers
games for 20 years over two channels, TWC SportsNet and TWC
Deportes. Time Warner's subscription rates rose by $5 a month as
result of bundling those channels into the enhanced basic cable
tier. In 2013, Time Warner paid the Dodgers $8 billion for the
licensing rights to televise Dodgers games for 25 years. The new
SportsNet LA channel was also added to the enhanced basic cable
tier, raising subscribers' monthly rates by another $4. The rate
hikes will cost Time Warner subscribers at least $11 billion over
the life of the contracts.

The plaintiffs Sherry Fischer, Stewart R. Graham, Todd Crow, and
Gavin McKiernan filed a class action lawsuit against Time Warner,
the Dodgers, and the Lakers, alleging that this kind of
arrangement violated the state's unfair competition law (UCL),
Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200, et seq.

Time Warner demurred to the complaint on the ground that federal
law expressly permitted bundling of channels, thereby providing a
safe harbor against unfair competition claims. The Dodgers and
Lakers filed separate concurrent demurrers, with both contending
they could not be liable because they had not committed unfair
acts, while the Lakers also joined in Time Warner's demurrer.

The trial court sustained without leave to amend Time Warner's
demurrer on the safe harbor ground, adding to its analysis a legal
issue that had not previously been raised, the express preemption
of state unfair competition laws by a federal regulation
implementing federal statutes that govern the cable television
industry. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the
Lakers' and Dodgers' demurrers because the absence of a claim
against Time Warner meant there could be no claim as to them.
Plaintiffs appealed.

Presiding Justice Rubin affirmed the judgment of dismissal based
on the order sustaining respondents' demurrers without leave to
amend.

A copy of Acting Presiding Justice Rubin's decision dated February
23, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ZMdut9from Leagle.com

Maxwell M. Blecher -- mblecher@blechercollins.com -- Courtney A.
Palko -- cpalko@blechercollins.com -- at Blecher Collins Pepperman
& Joye, for Plaintiffs and Appellants

Daniel G. Swanson -- dswanson@gibsondunn.com -- Jay P. Srinivasan
-- jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com -- Brandon J. Stoker --
bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for
Defendant and Respondent Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Bryan A. Merryman -- bmerryman@whitecase.com -- Rachel J. Feldman
-- rfeldman@whitecase.com -- Lauren M. Mutch --
lmutch@whitecase.com  --at White & Case, for Defendant and
Respondent The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc.

David B. Enzminger -- denzminger@winston.com -- Dan K. Webb --
dwebb@winston.com -- Derek J. Sarafa -- dsarafa@winston.com --
William C. O'Neil -- woneil@winston.com -- at Winston & Strawn,
for Defendants and Respondents Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company
and America Media Productions

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight panel consists of Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin and
Justices Madeleine Flier and Elizabeth A. Grimes


TING HSIN: Faces Class Action Over Food Scandal
-----------------------------------------------
Yuan-Ming Chiao, writing for The China Post, reports that the
Consumers' Foundation announced on March 16 that it has tallied
761 cases as part of a class action suit against four companies
involved in a series of recent food scandals.  The CF will
represent consumers against Ting Hsin International Group, Cheng-I
Food Co., Ltd., Chang Guann Co. and Beei Hae Edible Co.  The total
settlement sought is estimated to total NT$30 million dollars.

Food scandals in Taiwan have become commonplace, with the most
recent being the sale of toxic starch and tainted cooking oil
which has strained the institutional manpower capabilities of the
Executive Yuan's Consumer Protection Committee.  The Committee has
subsequently sought the assistance of the CF to seek legal action
on behalf of the affected consumers.

According to the CF, it has received 761 cases since it opened the
application process in December of 2014.  A total of 230
plaintiffs filed against Chang Guann Co., with 250 plaintiffs each
against Ting Hsin International Group and Cheng-I Food, Ltd. 20
cases were lodged against Beei Haie Edible Co.  However, over 40
percent of the cases require additional supplementary
documentation to be included by the filing parties.

Currently, the lawsuit against Chang Guann Co. and Cheng-I Food
Co., Ltd. amounts to NT$12 million dollars, while damages sought
against Ting Hsin International Group and Beei Haie Edible Co.
amount to NT$8 million and NT$7 million respectively.  After
accounting for punitive and psychological damages, the total
settlement will reach an estimated NT$30 million dollars.

The Foundation reminds consumers taking part in the suit to
forward any related documents and supplementary material to it as
soon as possible.  If consumers are unable to obtain original
sales receipts indicating the purchase of the tainted products,
they are advised to put forward a request to the shops in which
they purchased the items for a purchase record.

In another class action suit in 2011, the Foundation sought NT$2.4
billion dollars in compensation on behalf of consumers involving
plasticizer contaminant.  The final verdict awarded NT$1.2 million
to the plaintiffs.


THASSOS MARBLE: Faces "Villa' Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Vincente Villa, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Thassos Marble Corp., Praxis
Stoneworks, LLC, Marble Select, Inc., George Alexander, and Paul
Podeyma, Case No. 1:15-cv-01806 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are importers and distributors of Thassos snowhite
marble doing business within the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luigi Brandimarte, Esq.
      Mathew William Beckwith, Esq.
      SACCO & FILLAS LLP
      31-19 Newtown Avenue, 7th Flr.
      Astoria, NY 11102
      Telephone: (718) 746-3440
      Facsimile: (718) 746-4117
      E-mail: lbrandimarte@saccofillas.com
              mbeckwith@saccofillas.com


UMPQUA BANK: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Connolly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Umpqua Bank, and Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00517 (W.D. Wash., April 2, 2015), seeks to put an end on
the Defendant's practice of procuring background checks and credit
checks on employees and job applicants without first providing
accurate disclosures and obtaining a valid authorization.

Umpqua Bank is an Oregon chartered bank, headquartered in
Roseburg, Oregon.

Sterling Infosystems, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is
engaged in the business of assembling and evaluating consumer
information for the purpose of furnishing reports to third
parties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
      910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Beth E. Terrell, WSBA #26759
      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

         - and -

      Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 338-9400
      Facsimile: (617) 507--3456
      E-mail: nfo@mass-legal.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 439-6730
      Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
      E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com


VOCATION: Class Action Over Disclosure Failures Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Richardson, writing for The Mootley Fool, reports that
Vocation is facing legal actions from investors who are likely
fuming over alleged misleading conduct and disclosure failures in
the run up to the October confession that two of its Registered
Training Organisations (RTOs) had failed an audit by a Victorian
government funding body.

As a result fee-hungry lawyers from IMF Bentham Ltd. are funding a
proposed class action commenced by Slater & Gordon Limited to seek
redress for shareholders left nursing huge losses from their
Vocation investments.

The class action will allege that Vocation failed to disclose to
shareholders the compliance issues with the two audit-flunking
RTOs between August and October 2014.  Vocation intends to defend
the claim and much of the case will rest on just how aware
Vocation was of the likelihood of a failed audit in the period
between late August and the October 27 confession.


UNITED PARCEL: Supreme Court Revives Suit Alleging Pregnancy Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UPS must face claims that it discriminated by barring a woman from
working while pregnant, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News
Service, citing a Supreme Court ruling entered on March 25.

Peggy Young conceived in summer 2006 during a leave of absence she
took to undergo in vitro fertilization.  Prior to her pregnancy,
Young had been a seven-year, part-time employee for UPS, working
as an "air driver" out of a facility in Landover, Md.

When she became pregnant, both Young's doctor and midwife signed
notes stating that Young should not lift more than 20 pounds.

A supervisor refused to let Young return to work in the fall based
on a UPS policy that says all drivers must be able to lift
packages weighing up to 70 pounds.

While Young remained home without pay, the attendance chart at UPS
ascribed her absence to "disability" and Young lost her medical
coverage.

She claimed that the UPS requirement on heavy packages need not
have interrupted her work, since she had rarely needed to do such
heavy lifting during her time on the job.

Co-workers had also allegedly offered to help Young as needed
during her pregnancy, and she said she could have used a hand
truck if help was unavailable.

After the new mother returned to work in 2007, she brought
discrimination claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and sued UPS in October 2008.

A federal judge granted UPS summary judgment in 2011, however and
the 4th Circuit affirmed in January 2013.

The Supreme Court vacated that ruling 6-3 March 25 based on its
interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, before more
recent changes by Congress.

It noted that the relevant statutory clause says "women affected
by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be
treated the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as
other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or
inability to work."

Under the majority's interpretation, "a plaintiff alleging that
the denial of an accommodation constituted disparate treatment
under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act's second clause may make
out a prima facie case by showing . . . that she belongs to the
protected class, that she sought accommodation, that the employer
did not accommodate her, and that the employer did accommodate
others 'similar in their ability of inability to work," the ruling
states.

"If the employer offers an apparently 'legitimate,
nondiscriminatory' reason for its actions, the plaintiff may in
turn show that the employer's proffered reasons are in fact
pretextual," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority.  "We
believe that the plaintiff may reach a jury on this issue by
providing sufficient evidence that the employer's policies impose
a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that the employer's
'legitimate, nondiscriminatory' reasons are not sufficiently
strong to justify the burden, but rather -- when considered along
with the burden imposed -- give rise to an inference of
intentional discrimination."

Young could make such a showing by identifying how UPS allegedly
accommodates most nonpregnant workers with lifting limitations
while failing to the same for employees who are pregnant, the
court found.

"Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Young, there is
a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable
treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot
reasonably be distinguished from Young's," Breyer wrote.  "In
other words, Young created a genuine dispute of material fact."

The court noted that its h?olding may prove unhelpful for future
cases since the law in question has since been changed.

"In 2008, Congress expanded the definition of 'disability' under
the [Americans with Disabilities Act to make clear that 'physical
or mental impairment[s] that substantially limi[t]' an
individual's ability to lift, stand, or bend are ADA-covered
disabilities," the ruling states.  "As interpreted by the EEOC,
the new statutory definition requires employers to accommodate
employees whose temporary lifting restrictions originate off the
job."

While four justices joined the majority opinion, Justice Samuel
Alito concurred only in the judgment, writing in a separate
opinion that the court should have vacated another facet of the
lower court's summary judgment against her.

Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined a dissent by
Justice Antonin Scalia, which castigated the majority for crafting
"a new law that is splendidly unconnected with the text and even
the legislative history of the [Pregnancy Discrimination] Act."

"My disagreement with the court is fundamental," Scalia wrote.  "I
think our task is to choose the best possible reading of the law -
- that is, what text and context most strongly suggest it conveys.
The court seems to think our task is to craft a policy-driven
compromise between the possible readings of the law, like a
congressional conference committee reconciling House and Senate
versions of a bill.

"Because Young has not established that UPS's accommodations
policy discriminates against pregnant women relative to others of
similar ability or inability, she has not shown a violation of the
act's same-treatment requirement.  I would therefore affirm the
judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit."

Kennedy added in his own dissent that many laws exist to support
pregnant women as they "continue to be disadvantaged -- and often
discriminated against -- in the workplace."

"For the reasons well stated in Justice Scalia's dissenting
opinion, the court interprets the PDA in a manner that risks
'conflation of disparate impact with disparate treatment' by
permitting a plaintiff to use a policy's disproportionate burden
on pregnant employees as evidence of pretext," he wrote.  "In so
doing, the court injects unnecessary confusion into the accepted
burden-shifting framework."

The case is Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 12-
1226, in the Supreme Court of the United States.  The case is from
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.


WAYNE, NC: Summary Judgment Bid in McLawhorn Case Okayed in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Western Division granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion in the case BILLY S. McLAWHORN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
COUNTY OF WAYNE, NORTH CAROLINA, and WAYNE COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, Defendants, NO. 5:13-CV-692-BO (E.D.N.C.)

The plaintiff Billy S. McLawhorn is an emergency medical
technician (EMT) and that defendants are local government entities
who employ EMTs. Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant
alleging that the latter violated provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1983 (FLSA) with regards to providing
compensation for him while he was an EMT. Specifically, plaintiff
claims that defendants willfully failed to pay him at a rate of
one and one halftimes their regular rate of pay for each hour
worked in a workweek in excess of forty hours per week, instead
paying him pursuant to the fire protection exemption contained in
the FLSA despite the fact that plaintiff did not qualify under
that exemption. Further, plaintiff alleges that he was not paid
for hours spent attending continuing education and also that sick
time was improperly paid.

In February 2014, the court dismissed plaintiff's claims as to the
Wayne County Board of Commissioners, leaving only Wayne County
remaining as a defendant. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion
for leave to file an amended class action complaint, which the
Court granted in part in July 2014, thereby allowing plaintiff to
amend the complaint to include prospective class members who were
employed by defendant within the three years prior to October 3,
2013.

Wayne County seeks summary judgment in its favor on plaintiffs
claim that Wayne County violated the FLSA by impermissibly paying
plaintiff pursuant to the fire protection exemption contained in
29 U.S.C. Sections 207(k) and 553.

Judge Boyle granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
for summary judgment.  A copy of Judge Boyle's order dated
February 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/2AQK5ofrom
Leagle.com.

Billy S. McLawhorn, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff and Counter Defendant represented by
Walter S. Webster -- walter@websterlawfirm.net -- at The Webster
Law Firm

County of Wayne, North Carolina, Defendant and Counter Claimant,
represented by:

Christopher J. Derrenbacher
LLP & Eric G. Sauls
Patterson Dilthey LLP
The Summit, 4101 Lake Boone Trail
Suite 514
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: 919-821-4020
Facsimile: 919-829-0055


WHOLE FOODS: Accused of Falsely Marketing Gently Raised Chickens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Whole
Foods Market falsely advertises that its chickens are "gently
raised and lovingly slaughtered . . . to justify their exorbitant
chicken prices," in California Superior Court.


WILLIAM MORRIS: Sued by Fashion Week Crew Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the managers of New York Fashion Week deny crew members
compensation for working overtime, a federal class action alleges.

Brian Davis is the lead plaintiff behind the March 23 complaint in
Manhattan against the talent agency William Morris Endeavor
Entertainment LLC and its entertainment subsidiaries, IMG
Worldwide and IMG Models.

As a member of Fashion Week's House Crew from 2007 to 2014, Davis
and his co-workers managed the delivery and storage of supplies;
provided support to vendors and contractors; and set up and broke
down barricades and furniture.

Going on eight years, Davis, a resident of Rockland County, says
he has devoted six weeks a year helping the defendants put on a
semi-annual showcase of fall and spring clothing collections.

Fashion week runs for about seven to nine days every February and
September, and Davis allegedly belongs to the "House Crew"
responsible for setting up and breaking down the events, along
with other logistical needs.

Every year since late January 2007 the defendants have hired Davis
at a rate of $30 an hour, but failed to pay him overtime for weeks
in which he works more than 40 hours.

Davis says he "regularly worked over 100 hours per week without
ever receiving premium overtime pay" of one and one-half time the
regular rate.  He did receive "a 'bonus check to raise plaintiff's
average hourly rate to the regular rate for all hours worked
during that Fashion Week period," according to the complaint.

Days lasting "approximately between 60 and 110 hours per week"
were typical between August 2009 and March 2014, the complaint
continues.

The class seeks damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
          510 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Toll Free: (888) 831-8615
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120


WISE INTERVENTION: Faces "Black' Suit over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Black, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. Wise Intervention Services Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00453 (W.D.
Pa., April 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Wise Intervention Services Inc. provides well intervention in
connection with a diverse range of oil and gas drilling operations
and operates throughout North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


ZWICKER & ASSOC: 6th Cir. Revives Federal Claims in "Wise" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth District, ruled on plaintiff's appeal on the
appealed case entitled DAWSON W. WISE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.; ANNE SMITH; DEREK SCRANTON,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3278 (6th Cir.)

American Express Centurion Bank (American Express) extended an
offer of credit to the plaintiff Dawson Wise, an Akron, Ohio
native, by sending him a credit card and accompanying "Agreement
between American Express Credit Cardmember and American Express
Centurion Bank."  The agreement provides that all questions about
their legality, enforceability and interpretation, are governed by
the laws of the State of Utah (without regard to internal
principles of conflicts of law), and by applicable federal law. It
also provides, in the event of default the card holder/member
agrees to pay all reasonable costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, incurred by American Express in connection with
the collection of any amount due on the account.

Wise defaulted on the credit card account, and American Express
retained Zwicker & Associates, P.C., to collect the debt. Two
attorneys at the firm, Derek Scranton and Anne Smith, contacted
Wise and demanded payment on the debt, as well as attorney's fees
for their collection activities. They also filed suit in the Ohio
Court of Common Pleas in Summit County for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.

Wise subsequently filed for bankruptcy, staying the state court
lawsuit and filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Northern
District of Ohio for claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., and the
Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Rev. Code Sections
1345.02, 1345.03., against the two attorneys and their firm,
seeking to represent consumers from whom they demanded attorney's
fees. Noting that Ohio law bars contracts that would require
payment of attorney's fees on the collection of consumer debt,
Wise contends that their demands for fees, both prior to and
during litigation, violated the federal FDCPA and state OCSPA.

The defendants first filed a motion to compel arbitration, based
on an arbitration clause in the agreement but the same was denied.
The defendants then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
which the district court granted. The court concluded that Utah
law governed and allowed for the collection of attorney's fees,
that there was therefore no violation of the FDCPA, and that the
agreement was not governed by the OCSPA. Wise appealed.

Judge Stranch affirmed the district court's dismissal of the state
law claim, reversed the dismissal of Wise's federal claim, and
because the pleadings do not resolve the question of which law
would govern the attorney's-fee question, the suit is remanded to
the Northern District of Ohio for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Stranch's order dated March 12, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/o7M4xbfrom Leagle.com

For Appellant:

Theodore E. Meckler
Center Ridge Road, Suite 700
Rocky River, OH 44116-3497
Telephone: 440-333-6363

For Appelles:

Boyd W. Gentry
LAW OFFICE OF BOYD W. GENTRY
2661 Commons Blvd. Ste 100
Beavercreek, OH 45431
Telephone: 937-839-2881
Facsimile: 800-839-5843

The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Jane
Branstetter Stranch, Jeffrey S. Sutton and Eugene E. Siler, Jr.


* Lawyers Urge Investors to Sue Tax Avoidance Advisers
------------------------------------------------------
Professional Adviser reports that lawyers are urging investors who
have been advised to invest in disputed tax avoidance schemes to
take their financial advisers to court for compensation.

A number of legal experts called on investors to pool together and
launch US-style class action law suits against their advisers, who
they said, had failed to advise their clients of the risks of
investing in such schemes.

HMRC started to clamp down aggressively on schemes it deemed to
have been designed specifically to avoid tax in the last year.
New powers allowed it to demand upfront payment of disputed tax
from investors, which cannot be appealed against, meaning
investors targeted by the tax office were put under pressure to
find large sums of money quickly.

Lawyers told the FT advisers should be held liable for financial
redress because they were responsible for vetting the promoters of
the schemes and certifying the schemes worked.

"While the promoters are often long gone, their accountants and
IFAs will have professional indemnity insurance", said Withers
special counsel Tessa Lorimer.

A class action would be a much cheaper option than individual
claims, given most investors in such schemes were "in the same
position", another lawyer pointed out.

However some were more skeptical, saying advisers' negligence
would be difficult to prove in court, based on the "health
warnings" that are often included in the small prints of the
contracts.

HMRC has a target of reclaiming tax from around 33,000 people by
April 2016.

New rules coming into force on March 27 will force promoters of
'high risk' tax avoidance schemes to make public if they are being
monitored by the tax office.  They will also face a fines of up to
GBP1 million if they fail to comply with the conditions of a
monitoring notice.


                        Asbestos Litigation


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 GBP260 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.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Thomasson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the motions
for summary judgment filed by several defendants in the action
arising from the late Harold Thomasson's alleged contraction of
mesothelioma as the result of his exposure to asbestos during his
service in the United States Navy aboard two vessels between 1952
and 1954 and his work as a maintenance worker and pipefitter for
various employers between 1954 and 1985.

Judge Simandle, however, denied defendant Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice to filing
an appropriate motion.  Judge Simandle permitted MetLife to have a
supplemental discovery period.

The case is CLAIRE THOMASSON, individually, and as administratrix
of the Estate of Harold Thomasson, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-1034
(JBS/JS)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's April 9,
2015, opinion is available at http://is.gd/fuUzxafrom Leagle.com.

Kardon A. Stolzman, Esq., Robert Gitelman, Esq., NAPOLI BERN RIPKA
SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs
Kathleen M. Agnelli, Esq., MARIN GOODMAN, New York, NY, and
Frederic Goodman, Esq., Harrison, NY, for Defendant Fluor
Corporation.

Jordan David Beltz, Esq. -- jbeltz@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE
SINGER & MAHONEY LTD, Jersey City, NJ, and Talene Nicole Megerian,
Esq., SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD, New York, NY, for
Defendant Mannington Mills, Inc.

Michael Joseph Block, Esq., Mary S. Cook, Esq., WILBRAHAM, LAWLER
& BUBA, Haddonfield, NJ, for Defendant Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, a/k/a Buffalo Pumps, Inc.

David Schuyler Blow, Esq. -- david.blow@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEGWICK
LLP, Newark, NJ, for Defendants Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc. and,
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation.

Benjamin Bucca, Jr., Esq., New Brunswick, NJ, and Joseph Ira
Fontak, Esq. -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- LEADER & BERKON LLP,
New York, NY, for Defendant IMO Industries, Inc.

Angela Coll Caliendo, Esq. -- acaliendo@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY JASONS
MCGOWAN SPINELLI HANNA & REBER, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for
Defendants FMC Corporation and MCIC Inc. f/k/a The McCormick
Asbestos Company.

Theodore M. Eder, Esq. -- teder@smsm.com -- SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE
SINGER & MAHONEY LTD, New York, NY, and Alexander Charles
Schaffel, Esq. -- aschaffel@mklaw.us.com -- MCGIVNEY & KLUGER,
Florham Park, NJ, for Defendant Flowserve Corporation.

Joseph Anthony Gallo, Esq., WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
DICKER, LLP, Newark, NJ. and Paul C. Johnson, Esq. --
pcjohnson@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN &
GOGGIN, PA, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC.

John C. Garde, Esq. -- jgarde@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER & ENGLISH,
LLP, Newark, NJ, for Defendant Parker Hannafin Corporation.

Michael V. Gilberti, Esq., Florham Park, NJ, and Michael E.
Waller, Esq. -- michael.waller@klgates.com -- KIRKPATRICK &
LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS, Newark, NJ, for Defendant Crane Co.

Joanne Hawkins, Esq., SPEZIALI, GREENWALD & HAWKINS P.C.,
Williamstown, NJ, for Defendant General Electric Company.

Richard V. Jones, Esq., LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP,
Ridgewood, NJ, for Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Christopher J. Keale, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com --
SEGWICK LLP, Newark, NJ, for Defendants Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc.
f/k/a Borg-Warner Corporation.

Christopher S. Kozak, Esq. -- ckozak@lcbf.com -- LANDMAN CORSI
BALLAINE & FORD PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant Sequoia
Ventures Inc. f/k/a Bechtel, Corp.

Lisa Pascarella, Esq., PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI,
PLLC, Holmdel, NJ, Attorney for Defendants Trane US, Inc. f/k/a
American, Standard, Inc., Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Crane Co.
W. Matthew Reber, Esq. -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY JASONS
McGOWAN SPINELLI HANNA & REBER, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for
Defendant FMC Corporation.

Steven Frederik Satz, Esq., HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS,
New Brunswick, NJ, for Defendants Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc.,
Mannington Mills, Inc., and Goulds Pump, Inc.

Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq., SEDGWICK LLP, Newark, NJ, for
Defendants CBS Corporation f/k/a Viacom Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse
Electric Corp., General Electric, Company, and Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Schaffer" Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded to
the Circuit Court of the Twenty Second Judicial Circuit for the
City of St. Louis, Missouri, the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit captioned ANN SCHAFFER, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of NICHOLAS SCHAFFER, Deceased,
Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor in
interest to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
4:14CV1789 HEA (E.D. Mo.).  In remanding the case, Judge Autrey
found that Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation's removal of the case
to federal court was objectively reasonable.  A full-text copy of
Judge Autrey's Decision is available at http://is.gd/Z6lzsgfrom
Leagle.com.

Ann Schaffer, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron K. Dickey, DICKEY
LAW FIRM, L.L.C..

Nicholas Schaffer, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron K. Dickey,
DICKEY LAW FIRM, L.L.C..

Ann Schaffer, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron K. Dickey, DICKEY
LAW FIRM, L.L.C..

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor in interest to
Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L.
Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Ameron International Corporation, individually and as successor in
interest to Bondstrand Ltd., Defendant, represented by Lawrence S.
Denk, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R. Dauphin, FOLEY
AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., formerly known as Atwood &
Morrill Co., Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Amy
K. Shasserre, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P., Joshua N.
Worthington, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P., Michael R. Dauphin,
FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael W. Newport, FOLEY AND
MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., as successor by merger to Borg-Warner
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Don Ward,
HERZOG CREBS LLC & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, formerly known as Viacom,
Inc., Successor by Merger to CBS Corp. formerly known as
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent
L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Champlain Cable Corporation, individually and as successor in
interest to Haveg Pipe Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented
by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM, Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER
BROOM & Rebecca Nickelson, HEPLERBROOM LLC.

Flowserve, individually and as sucessor in interest to Nordstrom
Valves and Rockwell Valves, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP,
Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler,
KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Tracy Beckman Phipps, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Flowserve, formerly known as The Duriron Company, Defendant,
represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP, Jennifer M.
Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ & Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

FMC Corporation, on behalf of its former Peerless Pump Division &
Chicago Pump Division and Crosby Valves, Defendant, represented by
Julia Yasmin Tayyab, Esq. -- ytayyab@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN AND
LEWIS, LLP & Marcie J. Vantine, Esq. -- mvantine@smbtrials.com --
SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.

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

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Erica L. Meek, WILSON AND ELSER, LLP & Megan Ashley Schwarz, Esq.
-- mschwarz@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP, Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer,
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP & Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP.

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

Georgia Pacific, LLC, formerly known as Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Alex Belotserkovsky, HEPLER BROOM, Benjamin John
Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J. Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Graber & Mark D. Bauman, HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON.

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

Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey T. Bash, LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman,
LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to
DeLaval Turbine, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Matthew R. Fields, JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C. &
Matthew David Bigham, JACOBSON AND PRESS, P.C..

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

ITT Corporation, Inc., individually and as successor in interest
to Bell & Gossett formerly known as ITT Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Megan J. Bricker,
KERNELL LAW FIRM, PC.

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Albert J. Bronsky, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Thomas J. Kernell, KERNELL LAW FIRM, PC.

The J.R. Clarkson Company, sucessor by merger to Anderson
Greenwood & Co., including Kunkle Industries, Inc., Defendant,
Cross Defendant, represented by Brady Sherrod Edwards.

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

York International, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Don
Ward, HERZOG CREBS LLC & James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by H. Patrick Morris, JOHNSON AND BELL LTD &
David F. Fanning, JOHNSON AND BELL LTD.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Fails in Bid to Junk "Maag" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ted Stewart of the United States District Court for the
District of Utah, in an April 9, 2015, memorandum decision and
order denied General Cable's motion for summary judgment in the
asbestos-related wrongful death lawsuit filed by Karyn F. Maag, as
the personal representative of the heirs of Aaron Anderson.  Judge
Stewart found that in this case, it is yet to be determined
whether Mr. Anderson's asbestosis was a substantial factor in his
death, and this issue can be addressed through jury instructions
or post-trial motions.

The case is KARYN F. MAAG, Plaintiff, v. EATON CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:10-CV-905 TS (D. Utah).  A full-text
copy of Judge Young's Decision is available at http://is.gd/GHgeUq
from Leagle.com.

Karyn F. Maag, Plaintiff, represented by A. Jase Allen, BRAYTON
PURCELL LLP, Jacob Lewis Rice, BRAYTON PURCELL LLP, Jennifer L.
Alesio, BRAYTON PURCELL LLP, Brian D. Holmberg, BRAYTON PURCELL
LLP & Robert G. Gilchrist, EISENBERG GILCHRIST & CUTT.

General Cable, Defendant, represented by E. Scott Savage, Esq. --
ssavage@sywlaw.com -- SAVAGE YEATES & WALDRON PC & Stephen R.
Waldron, Esq. -- swaldron@sywlaw.com -- SAVAGE YEATES & WALDRON
PC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory J.
Sanders, Esq. -- gjsanders@kippandchristian.com -- KIPP &
CHRISTIAN & Patrick C. Burt, Esq. -- pburt@kippandchristian.com --
KIPP & CHRISTIAN.

Georgia-Pacific, Defendant, represented by Katherine E. Venti,
Esq. -- kventi@parsonsbehle.com -- PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER.

Riley Power, Defendant, represented by Michael W. Homer, Esq. --
mhomer@sautah.com -- SUITTER AXLAND & Noah M. Hoagland, Esq. --
nhoagland@sautah.com -- SUITTER AXLAND.

Cooper Industries, Defendant, represented by Ronald L. Hellbusch,
Esq. -- rhellbusch@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP & Mary
Price Birk, Esq. -- mbirk@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP.

Kelly-Moore Paint, Defendant, represented by Scot A. Boyd, Esq. --
scot.boyd@chrisjen.com -- CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Livingston" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted the motions for summary
judgment brought by United Technologies Corporation, Curtiss-
Wright Corporation, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., and Eaton
Corporation, in the action filed by Patricia Ann Livingston,
Deborah Selby, Douglas Livingston, and David Livingston, for the
wrongful death of Gerald Livingston allegedly caused by exposure
to asbestos and asbestos-containing products.

In support of his decision, Judge Young held that the testimony of
the Plaintiff's expert, Mark Thompson, which is essential to
establishing the Plaintiffs' claim of asbestos exposure, is
inadmissible.  Judge Young further held that without Mr.
Thompson's testimony, the record lacks any evidence that
Livington's flight line work exposed him to asbestos dust in the
manner the Plaintiffs claim.

The case is PATRICIA ANN LIVINGSTON, individually and as personal
representative of the estate of Gerald Livingston, DEBORAH SELBY,
DOUGLAS LIVINGSTON, and DAVID LIVINGSTON, Plaintiffs, v. ABB,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to ITE IMPERIAL
CO. f/k/a ITE CIRCUIT BREAKER COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 2:12-CV-01220-WGY (C.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Young's memorandum and order dated April 2, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/F1VXFPfrom Leagle.com.

Patricia Ann Livingston, individually and as personal
representative of the estate of Gerald Livingston, Plaintiff,
represented by Jennifer L Bartlett, Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett LP, Robert Allen Green, Simon Greenstone Panatier
Bartlett PC, Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett
PC, Tyson Brannan Gamble, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC &
Brian P Barrow, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC.

Deborah Selby, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P Barrow, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, Jennifer L Bartlett, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett LP, Robert Allen Green, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett PC.

Douglas Livingston, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P Barrow,
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, Jennifer L Bartlett, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett LP, Robert Allen Green, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett PC.

David Livingston, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P Barrow, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, Jennifer L Bartlett, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett LP, Robert Allen Green, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett PC.

The Boeing Company, successor to McDonnell Douglas, successor-by-
merger to Douglas Aircraft, Defendant, represented by David M
Abner, Cooley Manion Jones LLP, John Thomas Hugo, Cooley Manion
Jones LLP & Lindsay Weiss, Cooley Manion Jones LLP.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation fka Viacom, Inc. sued as
successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation a Pennsylvania Corporation
fka Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Kevin D Jamison, Pond North LLP, Kimberly Lynn Rivera, Pond North
LLP & Previn A Wick, Pond North LLP.

Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deborah A
Smith, Gordon and Rees LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Charles T
Sheldon, Walsworth Franklin Bevins and McCall LLP, Derek S
Johnson, Walsworth Franklin Bevins and McCall LLP & Katherine
Paige Gardiner, Walsworth Franklin Bevins and McCall LLP.

Gould Electronics Inc, successor-in-interest to ITE Circuit
Breaker Company, Defendant, represented by Arturo E Sandoval,
Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Khaled Taqi-Eddin, Foley and Mansfield
PLLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to Adel Fasteners, and Wiggins Connectors, Defendant,
represented by Bobbie R Bailey, Leader and Berkon LLP & Vanthara
Meak, Howard Rome Martin and Ridley LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, sued as successor-in-interest to
Pratt and Whitney, Defendant, represented by John K Son, Tucker
Ellis LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reinsurer Not Obligated to Pay Untimely Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Granite State Insurance Company brought a diversity action seeking
damages for failure to pay claims under reinsurance certificates
issued by Clearwater Insurance Company.  Granite State's claims
against Clearwater relate to liabilities that Granite State
incurred as the insurer of a company that entered into two
settlement agreements to resolve a large number of asbestos-
related personal injury claims.  Clearwater refused to pay Granite
State's claims, alleging that Granite State violated provisions of
the reinsurance certificates that required, inter alia, prompt
notice "of any event or development which [Granite State]
reasonably believe[d] might result in a claim against
[Clearwater]."  A district court found that Granite State's notice
to Clearwater under the reinsurance certificates at issue was
untimely and granted summary judgment to Clearwater.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an
opinion dated April 2, 2015, agreed with the district court,
denying Granite State's appeal from the summary judgment order.

The appeals case is GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. CLEARWATER INSURANCE COMPANY, FKA Skandia America
Reinsurance Corporation, FKA Odyssey Reinsurance Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-1494-CV (2d. Circ.).  A full-text copy
of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/LJAezzfrom
Leagle.com.

EDWARD P. KRUGMAN, (Stuart Cotton, Esq. -- scotton@moundcotton.com
-- Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, New York, NY; William
Goldsmith, AIG Property Casualty, New York, NY, on the brief),
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY., for Appellant.

DAVID C. FREDERICK, (Derek T. Ho, Esq. -- dho@khhte.com -- Jeremy
S. Newman, Esq. -- jnewman@khhte.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.; James I. Rubin, Esq. --
jrubin@butlerrubin.com -- Julie Rodriguez Aldort, Esq. --
jaldort@butlerrubin.com -- Catherine E. Isely, Esq. --
cisely@butlerrubin.com -- Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd LLP,
Chicago, IL, on the brief), Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC., for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Wins Summary Judgment in Calif. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted Rockwell Automation, Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment filed in the lawsuit brought by Larry
Armstrong and Carolyn Armstrong to recover for injuries inflicted
upon Mr. Armstrong due to his alleged exposure to asbestos
stemming from Rockwell's products.  Judge Young held that, taking
all inferences in favor of the Armstrongs, there is no genuine
issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff was exposed to
asbestos-containing material manufactured by Rockwell.

The case is LARRY ARMSTRONG, INDIVIDUALLY; CAROLYN ARMSTRONG,
INDIVIDUALLY Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY a/k/a MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01039-
WGY-AJW (C.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Young's Order
dated April 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/519GZMfrom
Leagle.com.

Larry Armstrong, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno B
Ashrafi, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Carlos J E Guzman, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Mark D Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Alexandra
Shef, Weitz & Luxenber, P.C., Cindy Jean Saxey, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC & Tyler Robert Stock.

Carolyn Armstrong, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno
B Ashrafi, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Carlos J E Guzman, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC, Mark D Bratt, Weitz and Luxenberg PC, Alexandra
Shef, Weitz & Luxenber, P.C., Cindy Jean Saxey, Weitz and
Luxenberg PC & Tyler Robert Stock.

Rockwell Automation Inc, as successor by merger to Allen-Bradley
Company LLC and Rostone Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Anthony Dean Brosamle, Esq. -- anthony.brosamle@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis LLP, Jenny-Anne S. Flores, Esq. -- jenny-
anne.flores@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP & Nicole Elisabet
Gage, Esq. -- nicole.gage@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Abbott" Suit Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur J. Schwab of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania remanded to the  to the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled RONALD P. ABBOTT, MARY L. ABBOTT, Plaintiffs, v. THE BOEING
COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, NO. 15CV0331 (W.D. Pa.), after
determining that there is no subject-matter jurisdiction as to the
Plaintiffs' state-law based asbestos claims in the District Court
because the claims do not arise under, arise in, or relate to US
Airway's bankruptcy.  US Airways was Plaintiff Ronald P. Abbott's
former employer and he alleged that he was exposed to asbestos
through US Airways' negligence.

A full-text copy of Judge Schwab's memorandum order dated March
31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/eAsCRefrom Leagle.com.

MARY L. ABBOTT, his wife, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, represented
by Janice M. Savinis, Savinis, D'Amico & Kane.

RONALD P. ABBOTT, Plaintiff, Cross Defendant, represented by
Janice M. Savinis, Savinis, D'Amico & Kane.

I.U. NORTH AMERICA, INC., as successor by merger to the Garp
Company, formerly known as the Gage Company, formerly known as
Pittsburgh Gage and Supply Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant,
Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Watson, Wilbraham
Lawler & Buba.

GEORGE V. HAMILTON, INC., Defendant, Cross Claimant, ross
Defendant, represented by Ronald J. Richert, Willman & Silvaggio.

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Paul K. Vey, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP.

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Jennifer E. Watson, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba.

INGERSOLL-RAND, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Melissa Devich Cochran, Esq. -- mdcochran@mdwcg.com
-- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon, Ricchezza, Singer &
Turchi, LLP.

THE BOEING COMPANY, in their own right and as successor-in-
interest to McDonnell Douglas Corporation, by its successor in
interest, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Julie Nord Friedman, Rawle & Henderson, LLP.

US AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by James
F. Marrion, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Stays Trial of "Hockler" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in an April 2, 2015, decision granted stay of trial in
the lawsuit captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION.
HOCKLER, v. THE WILLIAM POWELL COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-1076 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/MbJnj4from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Va. Widow Fails in Bid for Dependent Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner Stella Watkins, widow of Clay Watkins Jr., appeals the
decision of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Board of
Review dated March 27, 2014, in which the Board affirmed a
September 24, 2013, Order of the Workers' Compensation Office of
Judges.  In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims
administrator's August 16, 2010, decision denying Mrs. Watkins's
request for dependent's benefits.

Mr. Watkins worked as a plant worker for Century Aluminum of West
Virginia, Inc.  He passed away on March 7, 2009.  The death
certificate listed squamous cell carcinoma of the right lung as
the immediate cause of death and noted that tobacco use probably
contributed to the death.  Dominic Gaziano, M.D., found Mr.
Watkins's lung cancer had a significant contribution from
occupational asbestos exposure coupled with a significant
cigarette smoking history, and Donald L. Rasmussen, M.D., found
Mr. Watkins's fatal lung cancer was attributable to a combination
of cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure.  The Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board, Joseph J. Renn III, M.D., and John E.
Craighead, M.D., were all unable to make a diagnosis of
asbestosis.  They concluded that in the absence of a diagnosis of
asbestosis that Mr. Watkins's terminal lung cancer was the result
of significant cigarette smoking without material contribution by
occupational pneumoconiosis and/or asbestos exposure.  Mrs.
Watkins requested dependent's benefits based upon her husband's
death, and the claims administrator denied the request on August
16, 2010.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in a memorandum
decision dated March 27, 2015, agrees with the conclusions of the
Board of Review's Order and affirms the Order of the Board of
Review in reliance on the findings of the Occupational
Pneumoconiosis Board, finding that the decision of the Board of
Review is not in clear violation of any constitutional or
statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous
conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement
or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record.

The case is STELLA WATKINS, WIDOW OF CLAY WATKINS JR., Claimant
Below, Petitioner, v. CENTURY ALUMINUM OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.,
Employer Below, Respondent, NO. 14-0390 (W. Va. Sup. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/WbDRMz
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Georgia Court Affirms Verdict Against Scapa
------------------------------------------------------------
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., appeals from the judgment entered on a
jury verdict finding that it negligently exposed Roy Knight to a
toxic substance, airborne asbestos fibers, and that this exposure
was a contributing proximate cause of his development of malignant
mesothelioma.

On appeal, Scapa challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury's verdict of liability, the scientific
reliability of an expert witness' testimony, the lack of a hearing
prior to the admission of that expert testimony, the jury's
failure to allocate fault to other non-parties submitted on the
verdict form, and certain jury charge decisions and evidentiary
rulings by the trial court.  However, the Court of Appeals of
Georgia, in a March 30, 2015, opinion, found that there was
sufficient evidence to support the verdict, the expert witness'
testimony was scientifically reliable, a hearing as to the
admissibility of the testimony was not mandatory, the jury was not
required to allocate fault to others, and there has been no
showing of both harm and error as to any jury charge or
evidentiary rulings.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The case is SCAPA DRYER FABRICS, INC., v. KNIGHT et al., A14A1587
(Ga. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/lSbI3dfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Future Hires Fibro Claims Expert
--------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Energy Future
Holdings Corporation and its debtor-affiliates asks the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for authority to
retain Kinsella Media LLC as their asbestos claims noticing
expert.

The firm is expected to:

  (a) evaluate the Proposed Notice Procedures and assist the EFH
      Committee and its counsel in considering the Proposed Notice
      Procedures, including, as necessary, analysis of the
      Debtors' businesses, their operations, the products used in
      their facilities, and other pertinent data to determine the
      manner and scope of notice;

  (b) provide recommendations to the EFH Committee and its counsel
      with regard to the Proposed Notice Procedures;

  (c) provide an expert opinion and related testimony with respect
      to the Proposed Notice Procedures;

  (d) consult with the EFH Committee and its counsel with respect
      to any appeal related to the Proposed Notice Procedures; and

  (e) provide such other advisory services as may be requested by
      the EFH Committee or its counsel from time to time relating
      to the Proposed Notice Procedures.

The firm will receive a consultation fee of $30,000 for all the
services rendered.  The Committee proposes that the consultation
fee be paid to the firm as follows:

  (i) $100,000 of the Consultation Fee at the end of the first
      month following the Court's approval of the Application,
      without further order of the Court;

(ii) $150,000 of the Consultation Fee upon the Court's entry an
      order approving the Proposed Notice Procedures; and

(iii) $50,000 upon the earlier of (x) final resolution of the
      Debtors' bar date motion, including any appeals or further
      proceedings or (y) written notice to the firm from the
      Committee that the Committee has determined the engagement
      to be complete.

The Committee assure the Court that the firm is a "disinterested
person" within the meaning of Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy
Code.

A hearing is set for April 14, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to consider the
Debtors' request.  Objections were due on April 10, 2015.

Energy Future Holdings Corp., formerly known as TXU Corp., is a
privately held diversified energy holding company with a portfolio
of competitive and regulated energy businesses in Texas.  Oncor,
an 80 percent-owned entity within the EFH group, is the largest
regulated transmission and distribution utility in Texas.

The Company delivers electricity to roughly three million delivery
points in and around Dallas-Fort Worth.  EFH Corp. was created in
October 2007 in a $45 billion leverage buyout of Texas power
company TXU in a deal led by private-equity companies Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG Inc.

On April 29, 2014, Energy Future Holdings and 70 affiliated
companies sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del.
Lead Case No. 14-10979) after reaching a deal with some key
financial stakeholders to keep its businesses operating while
reducing its roughly $40 billion in debt.

The Debtors' cases have been assigned to Judge Christopher S.
Sontchi (CSS).  The Debtors are seeking to have their cases
jointly administered for procedural purposes.

As of Dec. 31, 2013, EFH Corp. reported assets of $36.4 billion in
book value and liabilities of $49.7 billion.  The Debtors have $42
billion of funded indebtedness.

EFH's legal advisor for the Chapter 11 proceedings is Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, its financial advisor is Evercore Partners and its
restructuring advisor is Alvarez & Marsal.  The TCEH first lien
lenders supporting the restructuring agreement are represented by
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP as legal advisor,
and Millstein & Co., LLC, as financial advisor.

The EFIH unsecured creditors supporting the restructuring
agreement are represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
as legal advisor, and Centerview Partners, as financial advisor.
The EFH equity holders supporting the restructuring agreement are
represented by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, as legal advisor,
and Blackstone Advisory Partners LP, as financial advisor.  Epiq
Systems is the claims agent.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, the successor trustee for
the second-lien noteholders owed about $1.6 billion, is
represented by Ashby & Geddes, P.A.'s William P. Bowden, Esq., and
Gregory A. Taylor, Esq., and Brown Rudnick LLP's Edward S.
Weisfelner, Esq., Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq., Andrew P. Strehle, Esq.,
Jeremy B. Coffey, Esq., and Howard L. Siegel, Esq.

An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has been appointed in
the case.  The Committee represents the interests of the unsecured
creditors of ONLY of Energy Future Competitive Holdings Company
LLC; EFCH's direct subsidiary, Texas Competitive Electric Holdings
Company LLC; and EFH Corporate Services Company, and of no other
debtors.  The Committee has selected Morrison & Foerster LLP and
Polsinelli PC for representation in this high-profile energy
restructuring.  The lawyers working on the case are James M. Peck,
Esq., Brett H. Miller, Esq., and Lorenzo Marinuzzi, Esq., at
Morrison & Foerster LLP; and Christopher A. Ward, Esq., Justin K.
Edelson, Esq., Shanti M. Katona, Esq., and Edward Fox, Esq., at
Polsinelli PC.?


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MeadWestvaco Corp. Had 630 PI Suits at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
MeadWestvaco Corporation, as of December 31, 2014, had 630
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, 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.

As with numerous other large industrial companies, the company has
been named a defendant in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation. Typically, these suits also name many other corporate
defendants. As of December 31, 2014, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
To date, there were approximately 630 lawsuits. Management
believes that the company has substantial indemnification
protection and insurance coverage, subject to applicable
deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos claims.
The company has valid defenses to these claims and intends to
continue to defend them vigorously. Additionally, based on its
historical experience in asbestos cases and an analysis of the
current cases, the company believes that it has adequate amounts
accrued for potential settlements and judgments in asbestos-
related litigation. At December 31, 2014, the company had recorded
litigation liabilities of approximately $22 million, a significant
portion of which relates to asbestos. Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that the company
could incur significant costs resolving these cases. After
consulting with legal counsel and after considering established
liabilities, it is our judgment that the resolution of pending
litigation and proceedings is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial condition
or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however, it is
possible such proceedings or matters could have a material effect
on the results of operations.

MeadWestvaco Corporation is a global packaging company providing
innovative solutions to brands in the healthcare, beauty and
personal care, food, beverage, home and garden, tobacco, and
agricultural industries. The company also produces specialty
chemicals for the automotive, energy, and infrastructure
industries and maximizes the value of its development land
holdings in the Charleston, South Carolina region. MeadWestvaco is
a Delaware corporation, incorporated in 2001 and the successor to
Westvaco Corporation and The Mead Corporation. MWV's reporting
segments are (i) Food & Beverage, (ii) Home, Health & Beauty,
(iii) Industrial, (iv) Specialty Chemicals, and (v) Community
Development and Land Management


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suits Remain Pending Against IDEX Corp.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal
injuries remain pending against IDEX Corporation, 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 and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries and seeking money damages, allegedly as
a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that
contained asbestos. These components were acquired from third
party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the
subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2014, the majority of the
Company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot
predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to
continue to cover its settlements and legal costs, or how insurers
may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Most of the
claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The
balance have been settled for various insignificant amounts. Only
one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the affected
business unit. No provision has been made in the financial
statements of the Company for these asbestos-related claims, other
than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the
Company does not currently believe these claims will have a
material adverse effect on it.

IDEX Corporation is an applied solutions business that sells an
extensive array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems
and components and engineered products to customers in a variety
of markets around the world. All of the Company's business
activities are carried out through wholly-owned subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related lawsuits, 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 one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Mississippi and Louisiana state courts alleging
that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud
containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to
have been utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of
asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we
acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We
believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted and we
expect to receive complete defense and indemnity from Murphy
Exploration & Production Company with respect to many of the
lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1992 asset purchase
agreement with them. We also believe that we are not liable for
the damages asserted in the remaining lawsuits pursuant to the
terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M
Corporation, and we filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas
state court against NuStar Energy LP, or NuStar, and Kaneb
Management Co., L.L.C., or Kaneb, the successors to Diamond M
Corporation, seeking a judicial determination that we did not
assume liability for these claims. Trial of this declaratory
judgment action is scheduled to commence in 2015. We are unable to
estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this
time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is an offshore drilling,
providing contract drilling services to the energy industry around
the globe with a fleet of 38 offshore drilling rigs, excluding
three mid-water semisubmersible rigs that the Company plans to
retire and scrap.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ametek Inc. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Ametek, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related
lawsuits, 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 (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant, along with many other companies, in a number of
asbestos-related lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits either relate to
businesses which were acquired by the Company and do not involve
products which were manufactured or sold by the Company or relate
to previously owned businesses of the Company which are under new
ownership. In connection with many of these lawsuits, the sellers
or new owners of such businesses, as the case may be, have agreed
to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified
Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are
being defended by, such sellers and new owners. These sellers and
new owners have met their obligations, in all respects, and the
Company does not have any reason to believe such parties would
fail to fulfill their obligations in the future; however, one of
these companies filed for bankruptcy liquidation in 2007. As of
December 31, 2014, no judgments have been rendered against the
Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company
believes it has strong defenses to the claims being asserted and
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters.

Ametek, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware. Its predecessor was
originally incorporated in Delaware in 1930 under the name
American Machine and Metals, Inc. AMETEK is a leading global
manufacturer of electronic instruments and electromechanical
devices with operations in North America, Europe, Asia and South
America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 880 Fibro Cases vs. U.S. Steel Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were 880 active asbestos-related cases against United States
Steel Corporation that remain pending, according the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

As of December 31, 2014, U. S. Steel was a defendant in
approximately 880 active cases involving approximately 3,455
plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve multiple
defendants. As of December 31, 2013, U. S. Steel was a defendant
in approximately 720 cases involving approximately 3,320
plaintiffs. About 2,575, or approximately 75 percent, of these
plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U.
S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual
number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S.
Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of
plaintiffs. During 2014, settlements and other dispositions
resolved approximately 190 cases, and new case filings added
approximately 325 cases. During 2013, settlements and other
dispositions resolved approximately 250 cases, and new case
filings added approximately 240 cases.

Historically, asbestos-related claims against U. S. Steel fall
into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos on the premises of U. S. Steel facilities; (2)
claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured
by U. S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U. S. Steel.

The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S.
Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-
related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including (1) the
rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect
of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending
asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations
in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims. Despite these uncertainties,
management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters
will not have a material adverse effect on U. S. Steel's financial
condition, although the resolution of such matters could
significantly impact results of operations for a particular
quarter.

United States Steel Corporation (U. S. Steel) is an integrated
steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with major
production operations in North America and Europe. An integrated
steel producer uses iron ore and coke as primary raw materials for
steel production.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Have 3,400 Pending Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
There were 3,400 asbestos-related claims outstanding against
Pentair plc's subsidiaries, 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 subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of December 31, 2014, there were approximately 3,400 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted.
This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect
defendants, or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount
does not include certain claims pending against third parties for
which we have been provided an indemnification."

Pentair plc is a focused diversified industrial manufacturing
company comprising four reporting segments: Valves & Controls,
Process Technologies, Flow Technologies and Technical Solutions.
Valves & Controls designs, manufactures, markets and services
valves, fittings, automation and controls and actuators. Process
Technologies designs, manufactures, markets and services
innovative water system products and solutions to meet filtration,
separation and fluid process management challenges in food and
beverage, water, wastewater, swimming pools and aquaculture
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Has $249.1MM Est. Fibro Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was
$249.1 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: "Periodically, we perform an analysis with the
assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our
estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of
the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $249.1
million and $254.7 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013,
respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current liabilities in
the Consolidated Balance Sheets for pending and future claims and
related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance
recoveries was $115.8 million and $119.6 million, respectively, at
December 31, 2014 and 2013 and was recorded in Other non-current
assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to third parties. Furthermore,
predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater
uncertainty in the latter portion of the projection period. Other
factors that may affect our liability and cash payments for
asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the
applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a
result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be
significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions
used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results."

Pentair plc is a focused diversified industrial manufacturing
company comprising four reporting segments: Valves & Controls,
Process Technologies, Flow Technologies and Technical Solutions.
Valves & Controls designs, manufactures, markets and services
valves, fittings, automation and controls and actuators. Process
Technologies designs, manufactures, markets and services
innovative water system products and solutions to meet filtration,
separation and fluid process management challenges in food and
beverage, water, wastewater, swimming pools and aquaculture
applications.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Corp. Has $447.4MM LAE Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
Alleghany Corporation recorded $447.4 million total net loss and
LAE reserves for asbestos-related illness and environmental
impairment liabilities, 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 reinsurance and insurance subsidiaries'
reserves for loss and loss adjustment expense ("LAE") include
amounts for risks relating to asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment. The reserves carried for such claims,
including the IBNR portion, are based upon known facts and current
law at the respective balance sheet dates. However, significant
uncertainty exists in determining the amount of ultimate liability
for asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment losses,
particularly for those occurring in 1985 and prior, which
represents the majority of TransRe's asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment reserves. This uncertainty is due to
inconsistent and changing court resolutions and judicial
interpretations with respect to underlying policy intent and
coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of responsibility
for resultant damages, among other reasons. Further, possible
future changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories of
liability and other factors could have a material effect on these
liabilities and, accordingly, future earnings. Although we are
unable at this time to determine whether additional reserves,
which could have a material adverse effect upon our results of
operations, may be necessary in the future, we believe that our
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment reserves are
adequate as of December 31, 2014.

"As of December 31, 2014, total net loss and LAE reserves for
asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment liabilities
was $447.4 million.

"As of December 31, 2014, the reserves for asbestos-related
illness liabilities were approximately 12 times the average paid
claims for the prior three year period, compared with 11 times as
of December 31, 2013. The reserves for environmental impairment
liabilities were approximately 10 times the average paid claims
for the prior three year period, compared with 9 times as of
December 31, 2013.

"The reconciliation of the beginning and ending gross reserves for
unpaid loss and LAE related to asbestos-related illness and
environmental impairment claims of our reinsurance and insurance
subsidiaries for 2014 is $444.3 million."

Alleghany Corporation owns and manages certain operating
subsidiaries and investments, anchored by a core position in
property and casualty reinsurance and insurance. Through its
wholly-owned subsidiary AIHL and its subsidiaries, the Company is
engaged in the property and casualty insurance business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Office Depot's Unit Continues to Defend Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc.'s subsidiary, OfficeMax, continues to defend
itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2014.

The Company states: "OfficeMax is named a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the operation of
certain paper and forest products assets prior to those assets
being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility. Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility for all pending or threatened proceedings
and future proceedings alleging asbestos-related injuries arising
out of the operation of the paper and forest products assets prior
to the closing of the sale. The Company has made provision for
losses with respect to the pending proceedings. As of December 27,
2014, our estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses for
environmental liabilities was approximately $10 million to $25
million. We regularly monitor our estimated exposure to these
liabilities. As additional information becomes known, our
estimates may change. However, the Company does not believe any of
these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's
business."

Office Depot, Inc. (Office Depot) is a global supplier of office
products and services. The Company operates under the brand names
Office Depot and OfficeMax. It offers products under various
labels, including Office Depot, OfficeMax, Viking Office Products,
Foray, Ativa, Grand & Toy, TUL and DiVOGA. Its products are
classified into three categories: supplies, technology, and
furniture and other. The supplies category includes products, such
as paper, binders, writing instruments and school supplies. The
technology category includes products, such as desktop and laptop
computers, monitors, tablets, printers, and ink and toner, among
others. The furniture and other category includes products, such
as desks, chairs and luggage, among others. It operates around 91
distribution centers (DC) and cross dock facilities in the United
States and Canada. It operates in three business segments: North
American Retail Division, North American Business Solutions
Division and International Division.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 5,200 Fibro Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries, Inc., had 5,200 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 states: "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from
asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities
that we own or formerly owned or from products that we formerly
manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have
been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we
can make no assurances that this pattern will continue.

"For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company had 5,200
asbestos claims.

"Claims are recorded as closed when a claimant is dismissed or
severed from a case. Claims are opened whenever a new claim is
brought, including from a claimant previously dismissed or severed
from another case. In 2014, by virtue of a new Texas law, which
amended the Texas Civil Code, the Texas courts commenced
dismissing dormant asbestos cases without prejudice to re-filing
by plaintiffs. In the fourth quarter of 2014, the Texas courts
dismissed almost 3,000 claimants with claims against us. We expect
additional dismissals in 2015.

"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The
study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of
historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of
malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049. Overall, we
expect to recover approximately 48% of our future indemnity costs.
We have completed Coverage-In-Place-Agreements with most of our
larger insurance carriers.

"The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

Cytec Industries Inc. is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.


                             *********

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  * * *