CAR_Public/150501.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 87


                             Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Telemarketing
ALCOBRA LTD: Court Appointed Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Fully Briefed
AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Abad-Castillo et al Appeals
AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Patrickson Case Appeals

AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Cannot Proceed Further in "Adams"
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Fail to Enforce Nicaraguan Judgment
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Sanchez" Case
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Galvan v. AMVAC" Case
APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery Filed

APOLLO GLOBAL: Updates on Pending Actions Related to Caesars
APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties in CEC Litigation Engaged in Discovery
APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties to Cambridge Action Seek Settlement Okay
AVANT BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
AZTEC FURNISHINGS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Cases Coordinated for Pre-Trial
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Dahl" Case
CAREER TRAINING: "Whitfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Settlement Subject to Court Approval
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey, et al." Case in Pretrial Discovery

DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Luis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Stramiello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Plaintiffs Have Yet to Perfect Appeal
ESPAR INC: Faces National Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
EVERCORE PARTNERS: Defending Against "Coburn" Class Action

FLEETMATICS GROUP: All Claims in Class Action Now Paid
GOGO INC: Action by Berkson in Early Stage of Litigation
GOOGLE INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Practices
HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Court Dismissed Securities Class Actions
INTELLIPAYMENT LLC: Sued Over Electronic Money Transfer Policies

KBR INC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Restatement Suits
KKR & CO: Final Court Approval of Settlement Subject to Appeal
KKR & CO: Supreme Court Appeal in KFN Litigation Pending
LIFEWATCH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bank" Suit Claims
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schaber" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Sprint Case
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed 800 INFUSE Cases as of Feb. 23
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Has Not Record Pipe Trades Suit-Related Expense
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: 7,500 Covidien Product-Related Cases Pending
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Injunction Bid in "Merenstein" Suit Denied

MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Dismissed Houston and Clark Cases
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Accord Reached in Taxman, Lipovich & Rosenfeld
MERCK & CO: Defendant in 25 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits
MERCK & CO: District Judge Remanded Alaska Lawsuit to State Court
MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Suits

MERCK & CO: 5,575 Fosamax Cases Pending As of Dec. 31, 2014
MERCK & CO: Updates on Cases Alleging ONJ Injuries
MERCK & CO: 1,035 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL at Dec. 31
MERCK & CO: 3,005 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in NJ at Dec. 31
MERCK & CO: 515 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in Calif. at Dec. 31

MERCK & CO: 785 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending as of Dec. 31
MERCK & CO: 80 Cases Outside of NuvaRing Program Still Pending
MERCK & CO: 1,235 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Pending at Dec. 31
MERCK & CO: Class Claims in Sales Force Litigation to Continue
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Plaintiff-Intervenors Seek to Amend Suit

NAVIENT CORPORATION: Blyden Drops SLM Corp. as Defendant
NAVY FEDERAL: Fiorani Can Proceed With Case in Forma Pauperis
NORA FOOD: "Diop" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Toth" Accord Subject to Final Court Okay
OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Mozingo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PINNACLE CAR: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "De Jesus" Suit Says
PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Prothero" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
RIZZOLI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Claims
SABER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Dembek" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SALON PEOPLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Motions to Dismiss Securities Actions Pending
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Class Action Lawsuit in Early Stages
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Class Action Lawsuit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Class Action Lawsuit
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint

SORIANO BROTHERS: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TECO ENERGY: Appeals from Dismissal of Class Actions Pending
TILE SHOP: Motions to Dismiss Class Action Pending
TITLE SOURCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wesolowski" Suit
VOYA FINANCIAL: 2015 Q2 Hearing on Bid for Punitive Damages

WEATHERBY INC: "Fiant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Reached in Class Action
WORLD OMNI: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Complaint Granted


                        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: 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: Crane Co. Pays Three Judgments in Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Nelson" Suit vs. Crane Co. is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in NY Suit vs. Crane Co. Set

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolves 107,000 Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 104 Fibro Cases at Jan. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Has 2,326 Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Resources Has 50 Fibro Cases

ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Had 1,399 Claim Files at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Had $366-Mil. A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Has 400 Fibro Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Fibro Suits vs. Transocean Ltd. Remain in La.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Unit Has 902 Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Has 240 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 7,975 Fibro Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $290.1-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Had 68,460 PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Had 11,000 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,821 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,125 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tort Reforms Groups Back Fibro Litigation Bill

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Watts" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Silver's Bid to Junk Indictment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of "Sterling" Suit vs. P&H Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Stellar" Suit Remanded to Pa. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Fails in Bid to Junk "Spells" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ex-Pipefitter's Petitions Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Tolls Time to Perfect Appeals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Ruling in "Hockler" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Directed to File Record in NY Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial Ruling in Texas Suit Ordered Vacated


                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Telemarketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michele O'Hanlon, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01821
(N.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of using an automatic telephone dialing system to place
non-emergency calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers,
without prior express consent.

24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. is one of the world's largest privately
owned and operated fitness center chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Lee, Esq.
      KROHN & MOSS, Ltd
      10474 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 405
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (323) 988-2400 x 241
      Facsimile: (866) 861-1390
      E-mail: rlee@consumerlawcenter.com

         - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


ALCOBRA LTD: Court Appointed Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alcobra Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has appointed
a group of investors to act as lead plaintiff for the second class
action action.

On November 19, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The case was filed on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased or acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 28, 2014 and November 14,
2014. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the Company's officers and
directors made false or misleading statements relating to the
results of Phase III study for its MDX drug candidate. The
complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.

On December 16, 2014, another class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. This complaint is largely identical to the
earlier complaint and purports to bring the same claims on behalf
of the same putative class.

On December 23, 2014, the first plaintiff in the first action
moved to voluntarily dismiss his case which motion was granted on
December 30, 2014. On February 9, 2015, the court appointed a
group of investors to act as lead plaintiff for the second action.
The Company has not been served and at this preliminary stage
cannot assess the exposure under such complaint.


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Suit Fully Briefed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal in a
securities class action complaint has been fully briefed.

"On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased our
common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5, 2010 against
us and certain of our directors and officers alleging violations
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder," the
Company said.  "On February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was
filed against us and certain of our directors and officers adding
alleged violations of the Securities Act. HealthpointCapital,
Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and
Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants
in this action. The complaint alleges that the defendants made
false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about our business, financial condition, operations and
prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and
our financial guidance following the closing of the acquisition.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees,
and other unspecified relief."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 18,
2011. The district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave
to amend on March 22, 2012. On April 19, 2012, the lead plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and violations of Section 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act against the same named
defendants. On May 3, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint. The district court granted that motion
without leave to amend and entered final judgment in our favor on
March 28, 2013. On April 17, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. The appeal has been fully briefed.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against this complaint. However, the
outcome of the litigation cannot be predicted at this time and any
outcome that is adverse to us, regardless of who the defendant is,
could have a significant adverse effect on our financial condition
and results of operations."


AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Abad-Castillo et al Appeals
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeals court
has heard oral argument but has not yet issued its ruling related
to the appeals in the Abad-Castillo and Marquinez cases.

On May 31, 2012, two cases (captioned, Abad-Castillo and
Marquinez) were filed with the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware (USCD DE No. 1:12-CV-00696-RGA) involving
claims for physical injury arising from alleged exposure to 1, 2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane ("DBCP(R)") over the course of the late
1960's through the mid-1980's on behalf of 2,700 banana plantation
workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Panama. Defendant
Dole brought a motion to dismiss 22 plaintiffs from the Abad-
Castillo case on the ground that they were parties in cases that
had been previously filed by the Hendler law firm in Louisiana. On
September 19, 2013, the appeals court granted, in part, and
denied, in part, the motion to dismiss, holding that 14 of the 22
plaintiffs should be dismissed (as they were named as plaintiffs
in prior actions).

As for the remaining eight plaintiffs, the court found that there
was a question as to whether they were parties to earlier cases in
Louisiana. On May 27, 2014, the district court granted defendant
Dole's motion to dismiss the matter without prejudice on the
grounds that the applicable statutes of limitation had expired.
Then, on August 5, 2014, the parties stipulated to summary
judgment in favor of all defendants (on the same grounds as the
earlier motion) and the court entered final judgment in the
matter. Plaintiffs have appealed this ruling, and, while the
appeals court heard oral argument in December 2014, it has not yet
issued its ruling.

The Company believes that a loss is neither probable nor
reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss
contingency on these matters.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: No Ruling Yet in Patrickson Case Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appellate
court has heard oral argument on the appeal in the Patrickson, et.
al. v. Dole Food Company, et al. case but has not yet issued a
ruling.

In October 1997, AMVAC was served with two complaints in which it
was named as a defendant, filed in the Circuit Court, First
Circuit, State of Hawaii and in the Circuit Court of the Second
Circuit, State of Hawaii (two identical suits) entitled
Patrickson, et. al. v. Dole Food Company, et. al ("Patrickson
Case") alleging damages sustained from injuries (including
sterility) to banana workers caused by plaintiffs' exposure to
DBCP while applying the product in their native countries. Other
named defendants include: Dole Food Company, Shell Oil Company and
Dow Chemical Company. The ten named plaintiffs are variously
citizens of four countries -- Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, and
Ecuador. Punitive damages are sought against each defendant. The
case was also filed as a class action on behalf of other workers
allegedly so exposed in these four countries.

After several years of law and motion activity, Dow filed a motion
for summary adjudication as to the remaining plaintiffs based on
the statute of limitations, as they had filed suit in Florida in
1995. All defendants joined in this motion. The court granted this
motion on June 9, 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel unsuccessfully argued
that their claims were tolled by prior class action cases. On
November 30, 2009, the court denied a motion for reconsideration.
Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on July 28, 2010.
On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In
March 2011, Dow filed a brief in opposition to the appeal, arguing
that plaintiffs are barred from this action by the applicable
statute of limitations. The appellate court heard oral argument on
the appeal in September 2014 but has not yet issued a ruling. The
Company does not believe that a loss is either probable or
reasonably estimable and, accordingly, has not recorded a loss
contingency for this matter.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Cannot Proceed Further in "Adams"
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that until new
counsel is properly substituted, Plaintiffs in the case Adams v.
Dole Food Company et al, cannot proceed further with the matter.

On approximately November 23, 2007, AMVAC was served with a suit
filed by two former Hawaiian pineapple workers and their spouses,
alleging that they had testicular cancer due to DBCP exposure:
Adams v. Dole Food Company et al in the First Circuit for the
State of Hawaii. The complaint was filed on June 29, 2007 and
names Dole Food Company, Standard Fruit and Steamship Company,
Dole Fresh Food, Pineapple Growers Association, AMVAC, Shell Oil
Company, Dow Chemical Company and Occidental Chemical Corporation.

Plaintiff Mark Adams alleges he was exposed to DBCP in 1974 and
1975 while working on Dole's plantation on Oahu. Plaintiff Nelson
Ng alleges he was exposed between 1971 and 1973 while working in
Lanai City, Lanai. AMVAC answered the complaint on or about
December 14, 2007.

While little discovery has taken place, AMVAC denies that any of
its product could have been used at the times and locations
alleged by these plaintiffs. Dole Food Company was dismissed on
the basis of the exclusive remedy of worker's compensation
benefits, as it was the employer of plaintiffs. In October 2014,
the appellate court upheld the dismissal but granted plaintiffs
the right to amend its complaint. However, in light of the fact
that Plaintiffs' request (made in November 2012) to substitute new
counsel was denied, until new counsel is properly substituted,
Plaintiffs cannot proceed further with the matter. The Company
does not believe that a loss is either probable or reasonably
estimable and has not recorded a loss contingency for this matter.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Plaintiffs Fail to Enforce Nicaraguan Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that to date,
plaintiffs have not had success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments
against domestic companies before U.S. courts.

A review of court filings in Chinandega, Nicaragua, has found 85
suits alleging personal injury allegedly due to exposure to DBCP
and involving approximately 3,592 plaintiffs have been filed
against AMVAC and other parties. Of these cases, only two --
Flavio Apolinar Castillo et al. v. AMVAC Chemical Corporation et
al., No. 535/04 and Luis Cristobal Martinez Suazo et al. v. AMVAC
Chemical Corporation et al., No. 679/04Castillo and Suazo, (which
were filed in 2004 and involve 15 banana workers) have been served
on AMVAC. All but one of the suits in Nicaragua have been filed
pursuant to Special Law 364, an October 2000 Nicaraguan statute
that contains substantive and procedural provisions that
Nicaragua's Attorney General previously expressed as
unconstitutional. Each of the Nicaraguan plaintiffs' claims $1,000
in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. In all of
these cases, AMVAC is a joint defendant with Dow Chemical Company
and Dole Food Company, Inc. AMVAC contends that the Nicaragua
courts do not have jurisdiction over it and that Public Law 364
violates international due process of law. AMVAC has objected to
personal jurisdiction and demanded under Law 364 that the claims
be litigated in the United States.

In 2007, the court denied these objections, and AMVAC appealed the
denial. It is not presently known as to how many of these
plaintiffs actually claim exposure to DBCP at the time AMVAC's
product was allegedly used nor is there any verification of the
claimed injuries. Further, to date, plaintiffs have not had
success in enforcing Nicaraguan judgments against domestic
companies before U.S. courts. Nor have Nicaraguan claimants had
success in bringing actions domestically, as one U.S. court has
dismissed such an action on its own motion after finding pervasive
fraud on behalf of claimants and their counsel. With respect to
the pending Nicaraguan matters, AMVAC intends to defend any claim
vigorously. Furthermore, the Company does not believe that a loss
is either probable or reasonably estimable and has not recorded a
loss contingency for these matters.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Sanchez" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that it intends to
defend against the case Sanchez v. Agro Logistics.

AMVAC has been named as one of 27 defendants in an action entitled
Sanchez v. Agro Logistic Systems, Inc. et al which was filed on
April 14, 2014 with the Superior Court for the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles as case number BC542612. In this
matter, two individuals seek unspecified damages from defendants
for negligence, strict liability and other causes of action
allegedly leading to physical injury (myelogenous leukemia)
arising from exposure to dozens of registered products over the
course of their employment as laborers from 1989 through 2012.

"We believe that the claims have no merit, intend to defend the
matter vigorously, and have entered into a joint defense
arrangement with certain other defendants," the Company said.

A fair amount of discovery, including plaintiff's deposition, has
been completed. Plaintiffs are unable to confirm whether they used
or were exposed to any of the Company's products. The Company will
continue to defend this matter and does not believe that a loss is
either probable or reasonably estimable. Accordingly, the Company
has not recorded a reserve for this matter.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Named as Defendant in "Galvan v. AMVAC" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an action
entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. was filed on
April 7, 2014, with the Superior Court for the State of California
for the County of Orange as case number 00716103CXC. This is a
putative class action brought under California Labor Code Section
2698 under which claimant, an inactive employee currently on
leave, seeks civil penalties on behalf of herself and other
allegedly "similarly aggrieved employees" under various Labor Code
sections relating to overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal
periods, and rest periods among other things. The Company believes
that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter
vigorously. Limited discovery has taken place since the filing of
the action; however, the deposition of plaintiff has yet to be
taken. At this stage in the proceedings, it is too early to
determine whether a loss is probable or reasonably estimable;
accordingly, the Company has not recorded a reserve for the
matter.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs and
the remaining defendants filed a Joint Status Report Regarding
Discovery stating that no discovery has taken place since
plaintiffs filed their interlocutory-review motion in the class
actions alleging online fraud.

In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The
defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is
affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of
Affinion's common stock.

In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its
business partners, who include e-merchants and credit card
companies, developed a set of business practices intended to
create consumer confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into
unknowingly paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs
allege that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect
stock ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's
board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and the
California Business and Professional Code, and seek, among other
things, restitution or disgorgement, injunctive relief,
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to
those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a
putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010
that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court
has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the
caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they
proceed on the same schedule. On June 18, 2012, the court
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel, and on September 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"),
which alleges the same causes of action against AGM as did the
complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases. Defendants filed motions
to dismiss on December 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed opposition papers
on February 7, 2013, and defendants filed replies on April 5,
2013.

On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class
action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in
the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC.
On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court
transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re:
Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion
to consolidate.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on defendants'
motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part
and denied in part motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and
Trilegiant on behalf of all defendants, and also granted separate
motions to dismiss filed by certain defendants, including AGM. On
that same day, the court directed the clerk to terminate AGM as a
defendant in the consolidated action.

On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of
certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including
its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants
filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs replied on June
5, 2014. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs and the remaining
defendants filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery stating
that no discovery has taken place since plaintiffs filed their
interlocutory-review motion.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Updates on Pending Actions Related to Caesars
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that there are
several pending actions concerning transactions related to Caesars
Entertainment Operating Company, Inc.'s ("CEOC") restructuring
efforts.  Apollo is not a defendant in these matters.

* Meehancombs Global Credit Opportunities Master Fund, L.P., et
al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7091
(S.D.N.Y.) (the "Meehancombs Action").  On September 3, 2014,
institutional investors allegedly holding approximately $137
million in CEOC unsecured senior notes sued CEOC and Caesars
Entertainment for breach of contract and the implied covenant of
good faith, Trust Indenture Act violations and a declaratory
judgment challenging the August 2014 private financing transaction
in which a portion of outstanding senior unsecured notes were
purchased by Caesars Entertainment, and a majority of the
noteholders agreed to amend the indenture to terminate Caesars
Entertainment's guarantee of the notes and modify certain
restrictions on CEOC's ability to sell assets. On October 2, 2014,
a related putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of
the holders of these notes captioned Danner v. Caesars
Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Danner Action"), against Caesars Entertainment alleging similar
claims to the Meehancombs Action. Caesars Entertainment and CEOC
filed a motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014. On January 15,
2015, the court granted the motion with respect to a Trust
Indenture Act claim by Meehancombs but otherwise denied the
motion. On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
seeking relief against Caesars Entertainment only, which Caesars
Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015.

* Koskie v. Caesars Acquisition Company, et al., No. A-14-711712-C
(Clark Cnty Nev. Dist. Ct.) (the "Koskie Action"). On December 30,
2014, Nicholas Koskie brought a shareholder class action on behalf
of shareholders of Caesars Acquisition Company ("CAC") against
CAC, Caesars Entertainment, and members of CAC's Board of
Directors, including Marc Rowan and David Sambur (each an Apollo
partner). The lawsuit challenges CAC and Caesars Entertainment's
plan to merge, alleging that the proposed transaction will not
give CAC shareholders fair value. Koskie asserts claims for breach
of fiduciary duty relating to the director defendants'
interrelationships with the entities involved the proposed
transaction.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties in CEC Litigation Engaged in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in
the In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, have
engaged in limited discovery.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne
v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January
21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action,
which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak
Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution
on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is
captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No.
14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as
defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso
Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class
action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees'
Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on
January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne
and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported
class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al.,
Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas
County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was dismissed for
want of prosecution on May 21, 2014.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.
Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and
certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other
things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the
merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties have
engaged in limited discovery. No defendant has any obligation to
answer or otherwise respond to any of the complaints in the
consolidated action until the plaintiffs file or designate an
operative complaint. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate
outcome of the above action, it believes that such action is
without merit.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties to Cambridge Action Seek Settlement Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to
the class action The City of Cambridge Retirement System v.
Reeves, et al., submitted the settlement agreement and
accompanying papers to the court for its approval.

On September 29, 2014, Athlon Energy Inc. ("Athlon") and Encana
Corporation ("Encana") jointly announced that they had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of September 27,
2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Encana ("Merger Sub") would commence a tender offer
(the "Offer") to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares
of Athlon common stock.  Following completion of the Offer, Merger
Sub would be merged with and into Athlon (the "Proposed
Transaction").  On October 23, 2014, The City of Cambridge
Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint
captioned The City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Reeves, et
al., C.A. No. 10277-VCG (the "Cambridge Action") in the Delaware
Court of Chancery naming Merger Sub, AGM and members of Athlon's
board of directors as defendants.  The Cambridge Action alleges,
among other things, that members of Athlon's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
consideration and approval of the proposed transaction, and that
Encana, Merger Sub and AGM aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.  On November 3, 2014, the parties to the Cambridge
Action and several other similar actions filed in Delaware and
Texas state court before the Cambridge Action (none of which named
AGM as a defendant (collectively, the "Actions")), entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the Actions.  On December
19, 2014, the parties to the Actions entered into a formal
settlement agreement, and on December 22, 2014, the parties
submitted the settlement agreement and accompanying papers to the
court for its approval.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, AGM will not be required to contribute any cash and
will be granted full and customary releases.


AVANT BUSINESS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Williams, Dennis Reeves, Kenneth R. Jackson, Andre Lynch,
Ashanta J.Young, and Theodore Williams, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v.  Avant Business
Service Corporation, Charles Chiusano, and Richard Rivera, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03182-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Avant Business Service Corporation is a New York corporation, with
its principal place of business located at 60 East 42nd Street,
New York, New York 10165.  Avant owns and operates a service and
logistics company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


AZTEC FURNISHINGS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Lopez-Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Aztec Furnishings, Inc., Pascual G.
Gonzalez, Case No. 1:15-cv-03548 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked more than 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a furniture store in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Pending Cases Coordinated for Pre-Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation has been named as a
defendant in several putative class action federal lawsuits filed
on various dates in 2011, 2012 and 2014. The complaints, which
assert claims including breach of contract and ERISA and
securities laws violations, all allege that the prices BNY Mellon
charged for standing instruction foreign exchange transactions
executed in connection with custody services provided by BNY
Mellon were improper. In addition, BNY Mellon has been named as a
nominal defendant in several derivative lawsuits filed in 2011 and
2012 in state and federal court in New York.

On July 2, 2013, the court in the consolidated federal derivative
action dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims. On Oct. 1, 2013, the
court in the consolidated state derivative action dismissed all of
plaintiffs' claims.

One of the plaintiffs appealed and the dismissal was affirmed on
Dec. 11, 2014. To the extent the lawsuits are pending in federal
court, they are being coordinated for pre-trial purposes in
federal court in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On Feb. 17, 2015, BNY Mellon announced an additional after-tax
litigation expense in anticipation of, among other things, the
anticipated resolution of substantially all foreign exchange-
related matters.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Dahl" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court held a
final settlement approval hearing on February 11, 2015, in the
case Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et al.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.). The suit alleges that, from mid-2003
through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.

On July 28, 2014, Blackstone entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve all of plaintiffs' claims without any admission of
wrongdoing. The settlement agreement provides for a settlement
payment to the class that was substantially covered by insurance
and did not have a material effect on the Company's consolidated
financial statements. On August 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and the
agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on September 29,
2014. The settlement agreement is also subject to final approval
by the court and the court held a final settlement approval
hearing on February 11, 2015.


CAREER TRAINING: "Whitfield" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Xavier Whitfield and Tracey Brimage on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Career Training Institute, Orlando,
Inc. d/b/a Fortis College, d/b/a Fortis Institute, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00518-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Career Training Institute, Orlando, Inc. owns and operates several
Beauty and Cosmetology school throughout Florifda.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick O'Haire Whitford, Esq.
      THE WHITFORD LAW FIRM
      Ste. 2902, 1431 Riverplace Blvd.
      Jacksonville, FL 32207
      Telephone: (904) 699-9573
      Facsimile: (646) 499-6556
      E-mail: pwhitford@thewhitfordlawfirm.com


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Settlement Subject to Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Monarch
Community Bancorp, Inc. and the Corporation have entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the class action plaintiffs
regarding the settlement of these lawsuits, which is subject to
court approval.

On October 31, 2014, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. (Monarch).
Under the terms of the merger agreement, the Corporation will
exchange 0.0982 shares of its common stock for each share of
Monarch common stock outstanding, subject to adjustment in limited
circumstances. Based on the closing price of the Corporation's
common stock on December 31, 2014, the merger has a transaction
value of approximately $27.0 million. Following the completion of
the merger, the Corporation intends to consolidate Monarch
Community Bank, Monarch's wholly-owned subsidiary bank, with and
into Chemical Bank.

At December 31, 2014, Monarch had total assets of $174 million,
total loans of $130 million and total deposits of $142 million.
Headquartered in Coldwater, Michigan, Monarch operates five full
service banking offices in Coldwater, Marshall, Hillsdale and
Union City, five loan production offices throughout central and
southern Michigan and one loan production office in Angola,
Indiana. Upon completion of the transaction, the Corporation
expects to close one full service banking office and three loan
production offices of Monarch. Customer accounts of these closed
locations will be transferred to a nearby existing Chemical Bank
office. The merger has received regulatory approval. Completion of
the merger is subject to the approval of Monarch's shareholders
and satisfaction of other customary closing conditions.

In connection with the pending merger, two purported Monarch
stockholders have filed putative class action lawsuits against
Monarch, its board of directors, Monarch Community Bank, the
Corporation and Chemical Bank. Among other remedies, the
plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger. Monarch and the Corporation
have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs regarding the settlement of these lawsuits, which is
subject to court approval. If this litigation is not resolved,
these lawsuits could prevent or delay completion of the merger and
result in substantial costs to Monarch and the Corporation,
including any costs associated with indemnification. Additional
lawsuits may be filed against Monarch, the Corporation or the
directors and officers of either company in connection with the
merger. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that
remains unresolved at the effective time of the merger may
adversely affect Monarch's and the Corporation's business,
financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and market
price.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: "Amey, et al." Case in Pretrial Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the case Joseph
Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, is in pretrial discovery.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

"We deny the claims, deny that class certification is appropriate
and deny that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and are
vigorously defending against the claims," the Company said. "The
case is in pretrial discovery, no class action has been certified,
and no representative action has been quantified or recognized. We
deny any violation of law and plan to vigorously defend against
all claims. We are unable to predict the outcome of the litigation
or the range of potential loss, if any; however, we believe that
our potential liability with respect to such proceeding is not
material in the aggregate to our financial position, results of
operations and cash flows. Accordingly, we have not established a
reserve for loss in connection with this proceeding."


DIAZ SUPERMARKET: "Luis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Luis, individually, and on behalf of all other employees
of Defendants similarly situated v. Diaz Supermarket Op Locka,
Inc. and Jimmy Diaz, Case No. 1:15-cv-21503-JAL (S.D. Fla., April
22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate grocery stores.  Diaz Supermarket
is headquartered at 151 Opa Locka Blvd., Opa Locka, Florida 33054.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Santiago Jose Padilla, Esq.
       FOWLER RODRIGUEZ, LLP
       355 Alhambra Circle, Sutie 801
       Coral Gables, FL 33134
       Telephone: (768) 364-8400
       Facsimile: (786) 364-8401
       E-mail: spadilla@frfirm.com


DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Stramiello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaclyn Stramiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Discrete Wireless, Inc., Fleetcor
Technologies Operating Company, LLC, and Fleetcor Technologies,
Inc. all d/b/a Nextraq(R), Case No. 8:15-cv-00955-JDW-TGW (M.D.
Fla., April 22, 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 an Atlanta, Georgia-based company
that provides fleet operators with an internet based system that
enhances workforce productivity through real time vehicle
tracking, route optimization, job dispatch, and fuel usage
monitoring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Westshore Center
      1715 N Westshore Blvd Ste 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


EMPIRE STATE: Class Action Plaintiffs Have Yet to Perfect Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that class action
plaintiffs have yet to perfect an appeal by filing their brief and
the appellate record with the court.

Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the
"Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme
Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L.
Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of
former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

"One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating
partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were
consolidated on consent and co-lead class counsel was appointed by
order dated February 11, 2014," the Company said.  "A Consolidated
Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name
us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary
damages."

On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion was
granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on August 8, 2014.

On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement
the record on appeal to include additional materials from the
Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The
plaintiffs have yet to perfect this appeal by filing their brief
and the appellate record with the court.


ESPAR INC: Faces National Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Espar Inc., Espar North America, Inc., and Espar Products Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02310 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), alleges that
Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of
Parking Heaters in the United States in violation of the Sherman
Act.

Espar Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Chicago, Illinois.  It is a supplier of
fuel-operated heaters and climate control solutions.

Espar North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Eberspaecher Group with its principal place of business located in
Novi, Michigan.

Espar Products Inc. is an affiliate of Espar Inc. and Espar North
America Inc. and is a Canadian corporation located at 6099A Vipond
Drive, Mississauga, Ontario L5T 2B2, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, N.E.
      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 -

      Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
      Debra G. Josephson, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20 Rahling Circle, PO Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223-1790
      Telephone: (501) 821-5575
      Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
      E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
              debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
              stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DON BARRETT, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927
      404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              whoese@kohnswift.com
              dabrahams@kohnswift.com


EVERCORE PARTNERS: Defending Against "Coburn" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in January 2015, Donna
Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action complaint against ETC
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in which
she purports to represent a class of participants in the J.C.
Penney Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock
Ownership Plan whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock
at any time between May 15, 2012 and the present.  The complaint
alleges that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by causing the plan to invest in
J.C. Penney stock during that period and claims the plan suffered
losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in J.C.
Penney stock.  The plaintiff seeks the recovery of alleged plan
losses, attorneys' fees, other costs, and other injunctive and
equitable relief.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses against these claims and intends to vigorously defend
against them. ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney for reasonable
attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would be refunded
to J.C. Penney should ETC not prevail.


FLEETMATICS GROUP: All Claims in Class Action Now Paid
------------------------------------------------------
Fleetmatics Group PLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that all claims in a putative
class action complaint have now been paid pursuant to a
settlement, and the case is now closed.

On August 14, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas County, Florida, entitled
U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20. The Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics
USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-CV-2079. The Company moved to
dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and changed the case caption
to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S. Prisoner Transport, et
al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al. The Company moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 18, 2012. The Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part on
September 27, 2013, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
October 11, 2013. The second amended complaint alleges essentially
the same claims as previously alleged.

On January 21, 2014, the parties executed an agreement to a
settlement with class members for an aggregate of $525, which was
subject to Court approval. On June 27, 2014, the court granted
final approval of the settlement and dismissed the case with
prejudice. All claims have now been paid pursuant to this
settlement, and the case is now closed.


GOGO INC: Action by Berkson in Early Stage of Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that the action filed by Adam Berkson is
in the early stage of litigation.

"On February 25, 2014, Adam Berkson filed suit against us in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
on behalf of putative classes of national purchasers and a
subclass of New York purchasers of our connectivity service,
alleging claims that we violated New York and other consumer
protection laws, as well as an implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, by misleading consumers about recurring charges for
our service. The suit seeks unspecified damages," the Company
said.

"We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because,
due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our
defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be
determined. Based on currently available information, we believe
we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain
and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


GOOGLE INC: Sued Over Alleged Age Discrimination Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Heath, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Google, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01824 (N.D. Cal., April 22,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's policies and practices of
systemically recruiting and hiring workers under the age of 40 in
lieu of older qualified workers.

Google, Inc. is headquartered in Mountain View, California, and is
a multinational corporation with internet-related products and
services involving online search, software, computing, and
advertising technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Low, Esq.
      Daniel A. Kotchen, Esq.
      Michael von Klemperer, Esq.
      KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
      1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 471-1995
      Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
      E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com
              dkotchen@kotchen.com
              mvonklemperer@kotchen.com

         - and -

      Michael F. Brown, Esq.
      DVG LAW PARTNER LLC
      P.O. Box 645
      Neenah, WI 54957
      Telephone: (920) 238-6781
      Facsimile: (920) 273-6177
      E-mail: mbrown@dvglawpartner.com

         - and -

      Vonda K. Vandaveer, Esq.
      V.K. VANDAVEER, P.L.L.C.
      P.O. Box 27317
      Washington, DC 20038-7317
      Telephone: (202) 340-1215
      Facsimile: (202) 521-0599
      E-mail: atty@vkvlaw.com


HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Court Dismissed Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Crush Partners LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court issued a final
Approval Order approving the proposed settlement and dismissing
securities class action lawsuits.

"Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi-
Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement
with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement
by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, our general partner, certain of
its officers and directors and its underwriters were named as
defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits brought
by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York," the Company said.

On February 11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one
lawsuit, styled In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities
Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint
was filed on February 15, 2013. That complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in connection with the Partnership's Registration
Statement and a subsequent presentation. Among other things, the
consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose to the market certain alleged information relating to
Baker Hughes' repudiation of the supply agreement.

On March 22, 2013, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On December 2, 2013, the court issued an order
dismissing the claims relating to the Partnership's Registration
Statement, but did not dismiss the claims relating to alleged
misrepresentations concerning the Partnership's relationship with
Baker Hughes after the IPO.

On September 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of the
consolidated action and release of all claims for $3.8 million,
subject to the court's approval. On January 5, 2015, the court
issued a final Approval Order approving the proposed Settlement
and dismissing with prejudice the complaints contained in the
consolidated action.


INTELLIPAYMENT LLC: Sued Over Electronic Money Transfer Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Cuello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Intellipayment, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03171 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of
creating an authorization agreement to provide the bank with
written notice in order to stop payment on a preauthorized
electronic fund transfer that waived the Plaintiffs' right to stop
payment by notifying his financial institution orally in violation
of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act.

Intellipayment, LLC is a New York corporation that owns and
operates a financial service company with a principal office
located at 3 50 5th Ave., 59th Floor, New York, NY 10118.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Auslaender, Esq
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (917) 793-9022
      Facsimile: (917) 793-9037
      E-mail: jauslaender@consumerlawinfo.com


KBR INC: Oral Argument Held on Bid to Dismiss Restatement Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
KBR Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument on the motion to
dismiss litigation related to the Company's restatement of its
2013 annual financial statements was scheduled for early March
2015.

"After the Company announced it would be restating its 2013 annual
financial statements, three complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and
former chief financial officers. Two of those complaints were
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and four parties moved to
be appointed lead plaintiff," the Company said.  "In September
2014, the court appointed Arkansas Public Employees Retirement
System and Local 58/NECA Funds as lead plaintiffs and ordered any
new cases arising from the same matters to be consolidated
together as In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
14-cv-01287. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
complaint on October 20, 2014, adding our former chief accounting
officer as a defendant. The amended complaint seeks class action
status on behalf of our shareholders, alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial
statements and seeks undisclosed damages."

"The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims
and filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for
failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong
inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants.
The lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on January 23, 2015 and
defendants filed their reply on February 6, 2015. Oral argument on
the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for early March 2015.
At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter."


KKR & CO: Final Court Approval of Settlement Subject to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement of a
class action by shareholders in certain public companies acquired
by private equity firms since 2003, received the court's final
approval on February 11, 2015, subject to the entry of a final
order. The final approval is subject to appeal.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that
from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly
conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity
financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low
levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity
services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to
any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and
specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of
discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.

On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in
part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery
as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.

On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and
certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a
putative damages sub class in connection with the acquisition of
PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the
PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by
the court is completed. On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint
that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to
the transactions identified in the previous complaints. Defendants
opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 7, 2011, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery
as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs'
proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion
seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint.

On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of
discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like
their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended
complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain
previously released claims against certain defendants.

On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving
KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged
overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants'
announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a
smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim. KKR
filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013,
which the court denied on July 18, 2013. Plaintiffs moved for
class certification on October 21, 2013.

Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January 24,
2014. On July 28, 2014, KKR entered into a definitive agreement to
settle all claims without the admission of wrongdoing, which was
preliminarily approved by the court on September 29, 2014, and
received the court's final approval on February 11, 2015, subject
to the entry of a final order. The final approval is subject to
appeal.


KKR & CO: Supreme Court Appeal in KFN Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
KKR & Co. L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeal by plaintiffs
in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware is pending.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KKR Financial Holdings LLC,
or KFN, shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's
board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in
connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to
which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction
was completed on April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and
prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for
the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint
filed in the California federal court action, which was never
served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining
Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a
consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware
action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On
October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted
defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13,
2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware and the appeal is currently pending.


LIFEWATCH INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bank" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lifewatch Inc. and Lifewatch Security Inc., each d/b/a
Lifewatch-USA, and Safe Home Security, Case No. 1:15-cv-02278-JG-
VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making calls using automatic equipment to
disseminate a prerecorded message to the telephone number called
without the use of an operator.

Lifewatch Inc. and Lifewatch Security Inc. are New York companies
with a principal place of business at 266 Merrick Road, Suite 104,
Lynbrook, New York 11563, that sells medical alarm systems.

Safe Home Security is a Connecticut corporation that has a
principal place of business at 55 Sebethe Drive, Suite 201,
Cromwell, Connecticut 06416. It is in the business of installing
home alarm systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd C. Bank, Esq.
      PRO SE
      119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
      Kew Gardens, NY 11415
      Telephone: (718) 520-7125
      E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schaber" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Schaber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01822-EDL (N.D. Cal., April 22, 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:

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
              ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Matthew R. Berry, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
      Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
      Telephone: (206) 516-3880
      Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
      E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway in Sprint Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that
pretrial proceedings are underway in the Sprint Fidelis Product
Liability Matters in Canada.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The
Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Filed 800 INFUSE Cases as of Feb. 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that as of
February 23, 2015, plaintiffs had filed approximately 800 lawsuits
against Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts, reflecting
approximately 1,300 individual personal injury claims from the
INFUSE bone graft product. Certain law firms have advised
Medtronic that they may bring a large number of similar claims
against Medtronic in the future. The Company estimates those law
firms represent approximately 3,500 additional unfiled claimants.
Medtronic recorded an expense of $140 million in fiscal year 2014,
related to probable and reasonably estimated damages in connection
with these matters.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Has Not Record Pipe Trades Suit-Related Expense
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company has not recorded an expense
related to damages in connection with the class action filed by
West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23,
2015.

West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3,
2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against
Medtronic and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone
Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August
3, 2011. The Company has not recorded an expense related to
damages in connection with these matters because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: 7,500 Covidien Product-Related Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that as of
December 26, 2014, there were approximately 7,500 cases pending
believed to involve products manufactured by Covidien's
subsidiaries.

Covidien currently is involved in litigation in various state and
federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products
alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of
those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien have supplied pelvic
mesh products to one of the manufacturers named in the litigation
and Covidien is indemnifying that manufacturer on certain claims.
In addition, Covidien believes that this manufacturer has an
obligation to indemnify Covidien with respect to the promotion of
the pelvic mesh products. The litigation includes a federal multi-
district litigation in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state
courts and jurisdictions outside the United States.

Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Covidien
believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and is
vigorously defending against them. As of December 26, 2014, there
were approximately 7,500 cases pending believed to involve
products manufactured by Covidien's subsidiaries. Based on
information as of the filing of Covidien's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 26, 2014, Covidien
believes that it has adequate amounts recorded relating to these
matters and we are currently evaluating such amounts in connection
with the consummation of the Transactions. It is not possible at
this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of
these matters or the effect of potential future claims.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Injunction Bid in "Merenstein" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that the
Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in
the class action filed by Lewis Merenstein.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic board
at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-
potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a
putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the
potential Covidien acquisition. In September of 2014 the
Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December
of 2014 the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion
seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On December 30, 2014,
a hearing was held on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 2,
2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Plaintiffs Dismissed Houston and Clark Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that the
Company has consented to plaintiffs' request to voluntarily
dismiss the class action lawsuits filed by William A. Houston and
Marilyn Clark.

In connection with the then-potential acquisition of Covidien, on
September 19, 2014 William A. Houston filed a putative shareholder
class action in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota and on October 3, 2014 Marilyn Clark filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota that is nearly identical to the Houston complaint. These
actions named as defendants certain members of Medtronic's board
of directors at the time and certain of Medtronic's officers, and
also named Medtronic as a nominal defendant. The Houston and Clark
complaints asserted various causes of action under Minnesota law,
including that the individual defendants allegedly breached
fiduciary duties in providing for excise tax reimbursements to
certain individuals who were and/or are directors and executive
officers of Medtronic in connection with the then-potential
acquisition of Covidien. In October of 2014 the Houston and Clark
matters were consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a preliminary
injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Company from the payment
of the excise tax reimbursements. On December 16, 2014, the Court
heard the preliminary injunction motion and on December 22, 2014,
the Court denied the preliminary injunction motion. On January 6,
2015, the Company consented to plaintiffs' request to voluntarily
dismiss the matter without prejudice.


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Accord Reached in Taxman, Lipovich & Rosenfeld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27,
2015, for the quarterly period ended January 23, 2015, that an
agreement in principle was reached in the consolidated Taxman,
Lipovich and Rosenfeld actions.

Putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by purported shareholders of Covidien under the captions Taxman v.
Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-12949, Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et
al., 14-cv-13308 and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc,
et al., 14-cv-13490. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the
Rosenfeld action and another purported shareholder of Covidien
filed a motion seeking to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and
Rosenfeld actions, and on November 14, 2014, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that
motion consolidating the actions (the "Consolidated Action").

On December 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Covidien agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Transactions, which are contained in
Covidien's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 23, 2014.
The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval. In the event that the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought by
Covidien shareholders challenging any aspect of the Transactions,
the negotiation or consideration of the Transactions, the
Transaction Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, except that the released claims will not
include the claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-11452, in the District Court,
Fourth Judicial District of Hennepin Count, Minnesota or the
claims currently asserted in In re Medtronic, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, 14-cv-3540, in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties shall negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the actions. There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts will approve the settlement even
if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event,
the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.


MERCK & CO: Defendant in 25 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in
approximately 25 active federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx
Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as a result
of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.

Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative class
action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the
purchase of Vioxx. All but one of those cases are in the Vioxx
MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Eldon
Fallon, of these class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the
settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all properly
documented claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys'
fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and
certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an order
approving the settlement in January 2014.


MERCK & CO: District Judge Remanded Alaska Lawsuit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in
lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states --
Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were pending in the Vioxx
MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order remanding the
actions back to their original federal courts. These actions
allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek
recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health
care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged
Consumer Fraud Act violations. On February 6, 2015, the federal
district judge in Anchorage remanded the Alaska lawsuit to state
court. The Montana Attorney General has filed a renewed motion to
remand its case from the federal district court to Montana state
court, but the motion has not yet been decided.


MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that dispositive motions have
been fully briefed in the Vioxx securities lawsuits.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against
Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the
"Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August
2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's
motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated securities action.

Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or
after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004,
have been dismissed. In October 2011, defendants answered the
Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification and, in January 2013, Judge
Chesler granted that motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to amend their complaint to add certain
allegations to expand the class period. In May 2013, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to
expand the class period, but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend
their complaint to add certain allegations within the existing
class period. In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended
Class Action Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the
Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed
and is now closed. Dispositive motions have been fully briefed.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits.
Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC
Lawsuit," together with the prior individual actions, the "Direct
Actions") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several
foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated
with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In January 2012, defendants
filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the
"ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed
in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and
denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other
things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed
as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full.

In September 2012, defendants answered the complaints in all of
the Direct Actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day,
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on
statute of limitations grounds. In December 2012, Judge Chesler
denied the motion to dismiss the KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013,
defendants answered the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery
has been completed in the Direct Actions and is now closed.
Dispositive motions have been fully briefed in the Direct Actions.

Between March 2014 and February 2015, six additional individual
securities complaints were filed by institutional investors that
opted out of the class action. The new complaints are
substantially similar to the complaints in the Direct Actions and
are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 5,575 Fosamax Cases Pending As of Dec. 31, 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax
(the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of December 31, 2014, approximately
5,575 cases, which include approximately 5,805 plaintiff groups,
had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or
state court, including one case which seeks class action
certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In
approximately 1,015 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw
("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such
as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax; however, substantially all of
those actions are subject to the settlement discussed below. In
addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,560 of these actions
generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other
bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of
Fosamax.


MERCK & CO: Updates on Cases Alleging ONJ Injuries
--------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on cases
alleging ONJ and/or other jaw related injuries.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ
MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.
Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. As a condition to the
settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to
agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck could either
terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100%
participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for
the settlement fund.

On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the current
participation level is approximately 95%. In addition, the judge
overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a motion filed by Merck and
has entered an order that requires the approximately 30 non-
participants whose cases remain in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to submit
expert reports in order for their cases to proceed any further.
The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases
alleging Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: 1,035 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that approximately 1,035
cases were pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of
December 31, 2014.

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML
seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May
2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur
Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict
litigation in the District of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur
Fracture MDL").

As a result of the JPML order, approximately 1,035 cases were
pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of December 31, 2014.
A Case Management Order was entered requiring the parties to
review 33 cases. Judge Joel Pisano selected four cases from that
group to be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the Fosamax
Femur Fracture MDL. The first bellwether case, Glynn v. Merck,
began on April 8, 2013, and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's
favor on April 29, 2013; in addition, on June 27, 2013, Judge
Pisano granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in
the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim
was preempted by federal law.

In addition, Judge Pisano entered an order in August 2013
requiring plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show
cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury
that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be
dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn
case. A hearing on the show cause order was held in January 2014
and, on March 26, 2014, Judge Pisano issued an opinion finding
that all claims of the approximately 650 plaintiffs who allegedly
suffered injuries prior to September 14, 2010, were preempted and
ordered that those cases be dismissed.

The majority of those plaintiffs are appealing that ruling to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Furthermore, on June
17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in the
Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January
2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were
adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated
those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge
Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit.

In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano
enter a further order requiring all remaining plaintiffs in the
Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label
is inadequate and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to
show cause why their cases should not be dismissed based on the
court's preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case.
Plaintiffs opposed that motion and asked the court to stay the
remaining cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL until the Third
Circuit rules on their appeal of Judge Pisano's preemption
decision, but Judge Pisano granted Merck's motion and entered the
requested show cause order in November 2014. In September 2014,
Judge Pisano also ordered the parties to participate in a
mediation process.


MERCK & CO: 3,005 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in NJ at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
approximately 3,005 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Jessica
Mayer in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group
of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional
groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were
selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively.


MERCK & CO: 515 Femur Fractures Cases Filed in Calif. at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
approximately 515 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
in California state court. A petition was filed seeking to
coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state
court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The
petition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currently
presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, the
court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed
through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v.
Merck case as the first trial for February 2015. Two additional
trials are scheduled for May and July 2015.

Additionally, there are four Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in
state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 785 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Merck is a defendant in
product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia
and/or Janumet. As of December 31, 2014, approximately 785 product
user claims were served on, and are pending against, Merck
alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the
development of pancreatic cancer. These complaints were filed in
several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims are
pending in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability
Litigation." That proceeding includes federal lawsuits alleging
pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia,
Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products
manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. In addition to the
cases noted, the Company has agreed, as of December 31, 2014, to
toll the statute of limitations for 19 additional claims. The
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 80 Cases Outside of NuvaRing Program Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
approximately 80 cases outside of the settlement program in the
NuvaRing Litigation remained.

Beginning in May 2007, a number of complaints were filed in
various jurisdictions asserting claims against the Company's
subsidiaries Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Organon International (collectively, "Organon"), and the Company
arising from Organon's marketing and sale of NuvaRing (the
"NuvaRing Litigation"), a combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal
ring. The plaintiffs contend that Organon and Schering-Plough,
among other things, failed to adequately design and manufacture
NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged increased
risk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/or
downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for
injuries allegedly sustained from their product use, including
some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority of
the cases are currently pending in a federal multidistrict
litigation (the "NuvaRing MDL") venued in Missouri and in a
coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement between Merck and negotiating
plaintiffs' counsel, which became effective as of June 4, 2014,
Merck paid a lump total settlement of $100 million to resolve more
than 95% of the cases filed and under retainer by counsel as of
February 7, 2014. Plaintiffs in 1,868 cases have joined the
settlement program. Those cases will be dismissed with prejudice
once the settlement administration process is completed. The
Company expects the first dismissals to begin in the second
quarter and continue on a rolling basis throughout 2015. The
Company has certain insurance coverage available to it, which is
currently being used to partially fund the Company's legal fees.
This insurance coverage has also been used to fund the settlement.

As of December 31, 2014, approximately 80 cases outside of the
settlement program remained. Any plaintiff not participating in
the settlement who chooses to proceed with their case, as well as
any future plaintiffs, in the NuvaRing MDL or New Jersey state
court are and will be obligated to meet various discovery and
evidentiary requirements under the case management orders of the
NuvaRing MDL and New Jersey state court. Plaintiffs who fail to
fully and timely satisfy these requirements under set deadlines
will be subject to an Order to Show Cause why their case should
not be dismissed with prejudice.


MERCK & CO: 1,235 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Pending at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of December 31, 2014,
approximately 1,235 lawsuits are pending related to
Propecia/Proscar product.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of December 31, 2014,
approximately 1,235 lawsuits involving a total of approximately
1,500 plaintiffs (in a few instances spouses are joined as
plaintiffs in the suits) who allege that they have experienced
persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment
with Propecia and/or Proscar have been filed against Merck.
Approximately 50 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or
Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer or male breast
cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and
in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict
litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of
New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have
been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County.
The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: Class Claims in Sales Force Litigation to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has denied the
Company's motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as
premature in the Sales Force Litigation.

In May 2013, Ms. Kelli Smith filed a complaint against the Company
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
of behalf of herself and a putative class of female sales
representatives and a putative sub-class of female sales
representatives with children, claiming (a) discriminatory
policies and practices in selection, promotion and advancement,
(b) disparate pay, (c) differential treatment, (d) hostile work
environment and (e) retaliation under federal and state
discrimination laws. In November 2013, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the class claims. Plaintiffs sought and were granted
leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2014, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint adding four additional named
plaintiffs. On October 8, 2014, the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss or strike the class claims as premature.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Plaintiff-Intervenors Seek to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiff-Intervenors
filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in
Intervention in the case, Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al.

On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class
action complaint against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned
Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL.
The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a class
consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice of
charging late fees proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law; and
Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging daily
interest on private educational loans. Following motion practice
and additional amendments to the complaint, which added usury
claims under California state law and two additional defendants
(Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"),
and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A), a Modified Third Amended
Complaint was filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs sought
restitution of late charges and interest paid by members of the
class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all future interest
payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as well as costs and
attorneys' fees, among other relief.

Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM
followed prevalent capital market practices of acquiring and
securitizing private education loans purchased in secondary
transactions from banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs
alleged that the services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
to the originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
constituting lenders on these loans. Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank
originated the vast majority of all private education loans
acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue in this case expressly
exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank since its inception.
Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient and as such the
Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole responsibility of Navient
Corporation. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification
on October 22, 2013.

On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2014,
a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf of two additional
customers representing a proposed usury sub-class. On June 23,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. A
hearing on the Renewed Motion for Class Certification was held on
October 14, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the court granted
plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification regarding the
claims concerning late fees, but denied the motion as to the usury
claims.

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiff-Intervenors filed a Motion for
Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Intervention. It is not
possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure,
if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith.


NAVIENT CORPORATION: Blyden Drops SLM Corp. as Defendant
--------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Marlene Blyden filed her
Second Amended Complaint, which drops SLM Corporation as a
defendant, adds various trusts as defendants, and adds claims for
conversion and for money had and received.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient
Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, Bank of New York, and the
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The complaint was
captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation et. al., Case No.
5:14-CV-2456.

On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
The plaintiff purports to bring the First Amended Complaint on
behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated
California borrowers. The First Amended Complaint alleged that
plaintiff and members of the asserted class were charged and/or
paid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law.

On January 21, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to File
Second Amended Complaint; the Joint Stipulation was approved by
Court Order on January 23, 2015. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff
filed her Second Amended Complaint, which drops SLM Corporation as
a defendant, adds various trusts as defendants, and adds claims
for conversion and for money had and received. It is not possible
at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any,
for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith.


NAVY FEDERAL: Fiorani Can Proceed With Case in Forma Pauperis
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge T Ellis, III, entered an order adopting the
findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge in the forma
pauperis lawsuits commenced by Ross A. Fiorani against Navy
Federal Credit Union, et al.

In 2000, Ross A. Fiorani -- a frequent filer of frivolous lawsuits
in Virginia -- was "enjoined from filing future actions in federal
district court without prior leave of court."  In October 2014, in
an apparent attempt to avoid such pre-filing review, plaintiff
initiated the action captioned FIORANI v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV1498 by filing a complaint against
defendants in the District of Maryland, together with a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.  Shortly thereafter, the matter was
transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia, with a ruling on
plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis deferred pending
review by the Virginia Court.  In November 2014, the matter was
referred to the assigned magistrate judge for preparation of a
prompt report and recommendation.

On December 29, 2014, the assigned magistrate judge filed his
Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations, recommending that
that plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis be
denied, and that the matter be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2). The pro se plaintiff has filed multiple
documents in response to the magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation, mostly in opposition.

On review, Judge Ellis ORDERED that with the exception of the in
forma pauperis recommendation, the findings and conclusions set
forth in the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation are
ADOPTED as the Court's findings and conclusions in the matter.
Specifically, plaintiffs objections with respect to the magistrate
judge's in forma pauperis recommendation are sustained and
plaintiffs' application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted
for purposes of this proceeding. The magistrate judge's Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED in all other respects and plaintiffs
complaint is accordingly DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2).

A copy of the March 31, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/CBaymafrom Leagle.com.


NORA FOOD: "Diop" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yacine Diop and Ilham Datesse, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Nora Food Corp. d/b/a Amsterdam Deli,
and Mohammad Al Saleh, Case No. 1:15-cv-03195-JGK (S.D.N.Y., April
23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Amsterdam Deli, a convenience
store/deli that offers a wide variety of sandwich and food
products, located at 481 Amsterdam A Venue, New York, NY 10024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      Jeffrey Hill Dorfman, Esq.
      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
              jdorfman@fslawfirm.com
              jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Toth" Accord Subject to Final Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in
the case Toth v. Northwest Bank remains subject to final court
approval.

On May 7, 2012, Ashley Toth ("Plaintiff") filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania against Northwest Bank ("Northwest").  Plaintiff's
complaint alleged state law claims related to Northwest's order of
posting ATM and debit card transactions and the assessment of
overdraft fees on deposit customer accounts.  Northwest filed
preliminary objections to the putative class action complaint on
June 29, 2012.  On September 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended
putative class action complaint containing substantially the same
allegations as the initial putative class action complaint.  On
November 5, 2012, Northwest filed preliminary objections to the
amended putative class action complaint.  Plaintiff filed her
opposition to Northwest's preliminary objections on December 6,
2012, and Northwest filed its reply in support of the preliminary
objections on January 3, 2013.  On June 25, 2013, the court
entered an order, granting in part and overruling in part,
Northwest's preliminary objections.

On November 18, 2013, the parties participated in a mediation and
reached an agreement in principle, subject to the preparation and
execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and
release, to fully, finally and completely settle, resolve,
discharge and release all claims that have been or could have been
asserted in the action on a class-wide basis.  The proposed
settlement contemplates that, in return for a full and complete
release of claims by Plaintiff and the settlement class members,
Northwest will create a settlement fund for distribution to the
settlement class members after certain court-approved reductions,
including for attorney's fees and expenses.  The proposed
settlement has been preliminarily approved and remains subject to
final court approval.


OIL STATES ENERGY: Faces "Mozingo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sammy Mozingo and Jamie Holloway, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees v. Oil States Energy Services,
L.L.C. f/k/a Specialty Tank Supply, Oil States Energy Services
Holding, Inc., Oil States International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00529-CB (W.D. Pa., April 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Oil States Energy Services, L.L.C. is a Delaware corporation that
provides integrated rental solutions and services in connection
with oilfield operations in North America, South America, Canada
and Mexico.

Oil States Energy Services Holding, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that provides integrated rental solutions and services in
connection with oilfield operations in North America, South
America, Canada and Mexico.

Oil States International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
provides a range of products and services to companies in the oil
and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      Jeffrey W. Chivers, Esq.
      THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
              jwc@employmentrightsgroup.com


PINNACLE CAR: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "De Jesus" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan De Jesus v. Pinnacle Car & Limousine Inc., Shimon Peretz, and
John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03180-LTS (S.D.N.Y., April 22,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay their
employees minimum wages, straight time wages and tips as required
by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a high end limousine services
company with its principal place of business at 21 Barstow Rd.,
Great Neck, NY 11021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Coudert Rand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 286-1425
      Facsimile: (646) 688-3078
      E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com


PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Prothero" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Marjorie Prothero, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00637
(W.D. Wash., April 22, 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 -

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT LYON + OTTOSON, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 216-7380
      E-mail: c.ridout@rlollp.com
              c.marker@rlollp.com


RIZZOLI INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leah Whisler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03186-ALC (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
more than 40 in a week.

Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business in the State of New York and
is engaged in books and calendars publications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Allen Meister, Esq.
      PEDOWITZ & MEISTER, LLP
      570 Lexington Avenue, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 403-7330
      Facsimile: (212) 354-6614
      E-mail: robert.meister@pedowitzmeister.com


SABER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Dembek" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Dembek, on behalf of her and all others similarly situated
v. Saber Healthcare Group, L.L.C. d/b/a Diplomat Healthcare, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00788 (N.D. Ohio, April 22, 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 nursing home and rehabilitation
center located at 9001 West 130th Street, North Royalton, Ohio
44133.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederick M. Bean, Esq.
      SPITZ LAW FIRM
      Ste. 290, 4620 Richmond Road
      Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
      Telephone: (216) 291-4744
      Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
      E-mail: fred.bean@spitzlawfirm.com


SALON PEOPLE: Faces "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Renee Johnson, Amanda E. Richter, on behalf of themseles and
all others similarly situated v. The Salon People, Inc. et al,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00964-MSS-TBM (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Salon People, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns and
operates a beauty and cosmetology schools throughout Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick O'Haire Whitford, Esq.
      THE WHITFORD LAW FIRM
      Ste. 2902, 1431 Riverplace Blvd.
      Jacksonville, FL 32207
      Telephone: (904) 699-9573
      Facsimile: (646) 499-6556
      E-mail: pwhitford@thewhitfordlawfirm.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Motions to Dismiss Securities Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants in the
securities class action have filed respective motions to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the
court.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during
the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12,
2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian
Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the
"Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on
allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other
defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the
Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered
into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former
CEO Tom Ward.

The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the
court. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if
any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal
theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the defendants'
defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not
established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.
Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company
indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the
Securities Litigation.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Hart" Class Action Lawsuit in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class actio lawsuit
filed by James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs is in the early
stages.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge
Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended
Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other
similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs
further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and
other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in
work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims
against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act,
(iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma. All of these motions are pending before the
court.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014,
the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and
denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Surbaugh" Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. is defending against a class action filed
by Steve Surbaugh, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On November 10, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.
S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
certain current and former directors and officers of the Company
in the case styled Steve Surbaugh vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom
L. Ward, James D. Bennett, Eddie M. LeBlanc, and Randall D.
Cooley. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than
defendants who purchased SandRidge securities between March 1,
2013, through November 4, 2014, seeking to recover damages
allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding SandRidge's business, operations and future prospects
because such statements failed to properly account for the
penalties SandRidge accrued under its treating agreement with
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and, as a result, SandRidge's
financial statements were materially false and misleading during
the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses
associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The
Company has not established any reserves relating to this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, Inc. is defending against a class action filed
by Steven T. Dakil, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On November 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.
S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
certain current and former directors and officers of the Company
in the case styled Steven T. Dakil vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom
L. Ward, James D. Bennett, and Eddie M. LeBlanc. The complaint
asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired SandRidge securities between
February 28, 2013, and November 3, 2014, seeking to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
SandRidge's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
SandRidge was improperly accounting for penalties owed to
Occidental Petroleum Corp. under a treating agreement on an annual
basis when it was required to do so on a quarterly basis; (ii)
SandRidge's quarterly and annual financial and operating results
for the periods ending December 31, 2012 through June 30, 2014,
were overstated and required restatement; (iii) defendant Ward
engaged in improper related party transactions; (iv) SandRidge
lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (v)
as a result of the foregoing, SandRidge's financial statements
were materially false and misleading during the class period. An
estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this action
cannot be made at this time. The Company has not established any
reserves relating to this action.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court
entered an Order Granting Joint Motion for Scheduling Order
setting Lead Plaintiffs' time to file any amended complaint on or
before February 27, 2015.

"On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014,
captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (the "Court") against the
Company, the Chairman of our Board of Directors, certain of our
executive officers and Blackstone," the Company said.  "The
complaint alleges that the prospectus and registration statements
filed contained materially false and misleading information in
violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief. On December 10, 2014, the
Court entered an Order Granting Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Selection of Counsel, appointing Pensionskassen For
Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs. On December 29, 2014, the
Court entered an Order Granting Joint Motion for Scheduling Order
setting Lead Plaintiffs' time to file any amended complaint on or
before February 27, 2015. The Company believes that the class
action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit."


SORIANO BROTHERS: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Damirsy Rodriguez Acosta and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Soriano Brothers, Soriano Brothers Restaurant
Group LLC, R & M Fruits, Corp., Yismel Soriano, Ismael Soriano,
Sr., Ismael Soriano, Jr., Juan C. Ruiz, Janette Ruiz, Carlito
Ruiz, Case No. 1:15-cv-21514-UU (S.D. Fla., April 22, 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 Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


TECO ENERGY: Appeals from Dismissal of Class Actions Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Teco Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the appeals from the
dismissal of class actions related to New Mexico Gas Company's gas
shortages are pending.

In February 2011, NMGC experienced gas shortages due to weather-
related interruptions of electric service, weather-related
problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines and in gas
fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC, and high
weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high usage
resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC causing
involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to approximately
28,700 customers (residential and business).

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class
consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas
utility service curtailed during the early-February system
emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In
March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to
represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and
governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the
natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does
at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class
action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff
purporting to represent a class of all "similarly situated New
Mexico private businesses and enterprises."

The two purported class action suits (three purported classes)
were consolidated. The court dismissed the class actions in their
entirety with prejudice in October 2014 and appeals from the
dismissal were taken by the plaintiffs in November 2014 and are
pending.

Two lawsuits representing 18 insurance carriers have filed
subrogation lawsuits for monies paid to their insureds as a result
of the curtailment of natural gas service in February 2011. These
subrogation matters are pending and discovery is proceeding. NMGC
has filed motions to dismiss similar to those previously filed and
ruled on favorably in the class actions.

The company believes the claims in the pending actions are without
merit and intends to defend each matter vigorously. The company is
unable at this time to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
with respect to these matters.


TILE SHOP: Motions to Dismiss Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants' motions
to dismiss a class action complaint are pending before the Court.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, its directors,
and certain companies affiliated with the directors, are
defendants in a consolidated class action brought under the
federal securities laws and now pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption
Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop
Holdings, Inc., et al. Several actions were filed in 2013, and
then consolidated.  The plaintiffs are four investors who seek to
represent a class or classes consisting of (1) persons who
purchased Tile Shop common stock in the market between August 22,
2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), (2)
persons who purchased Tile Shop common stock in the Company's
December 2012 secondary public offering; and (3) persons who
purchased Tile Shop common stock in the Company's June 2013
secondary public offering.  Eight investment banking firms who
were underwriters in the secondary public offerings are also named
as defendants.

In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint") filed on
May 23, 2014, the  plaintiffs allege that defendants made false or
misleading statements of material fact in press releases and SEC
filings about the Company's relationships with its vendors,
financial performance, and prospects, and that defendants failed
to disclose certain related party transactions.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In addition to attorney's fees and costs,
the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock in the
secondary public offerings or in the market during the alleged
class period.  The defendants are defending the matter and have
moved to dismiss the complaint.   Those motions are pending before
the Court.

Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of
the case, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may result from this action.  The Company
maintains directors and officers liability insurance policies that
may reduce the Company's exposure, if any.  In the event the
Company incurs a loss, the Company will pursue recoveries to the
maximum extent available under these policies.


TITLE SOURCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Wesolowski" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the appeal case ROBERT A. WESOLOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. TITLE SOURCE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 14-12781, the main issue is whether an individual or an
entity "actually performs services" within the meaning of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2607(b),
if the provision of such services is illegal under state law.

Between 2011 and 2013, Robert and Connie Wesolowski refinanced
their property three times through Quicken Loans. For all three
closings, Quicken Loans contracted with Title Source, a vendor
management company, to perform settlement services, including
conducting the title search, reviewing the title examination,
preparing the settlement statement, and recording the deeds. Title
Source hired Cook & James to schedule the closing and to retain
attorneys to witness the execution of the closing documents. The
Wesolowskis paid $500 in settlement fees for each closing.

Subsequently, the Wesolowskis filed a putative class action
against Title Source, Michelle Ruff (in-house counsel for Title
Source), and Cook & James, alleging that they split fees for
unearned services in violation of Sec. 2607(b) of RESPA.  The
Wesolowskis specifically alleged that (1) because Georgia law
requires that settlement services be provided only by Georgia-
licensed attorneys, the services performed by Title Source were
illegal, and could not constitute "services actually performed"
under RESPA, as a matter of law; (2) Cook & James violated RESPA
by providing only nominal services, i.e., retaining attorney-
witnesses; and (3) Ms. Ruff performed no services at all

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim under RESPA.  The district court granted the motion to
dismiss.

In an April 7, 2015 Per Curiam available at http://is.gd/ynDrfh
from Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims against Title Source
and Cook & James, reversed the dismissal of the claims against Ms.
Ruff, and remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.


VOYA FINANCIAL: 2015 Q2 Hearing on Bid for Punitive Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court will hold a
hearing in the second quarter of 2015 regarding whether to award
punitive damages to Fireman's Fund.

Litigation includes Beeson, et al. v. SMMS, Lion Connecticut
Holdings, Inc. and ING NAIC (Marin County CA Superior Court, CIV-
092545). Thirty-four Plaintiff households (husband/wife/trust)
assert that SMMS, which was purchased in 2000 and sold in 2003,
breached a duty to monitor the performance of investments that
Plaintiffs made with independent financial advisors they met in
conjunction with retirement planning seminars presented at
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. SMMS recommended the advisors to
Fireman's Fund as seminar presenters. Some of the seminars were
arranged by SMMS. As a result of the performance of their
investments, Plaintiffs claim they incurred damages. Fireman's
Fund has asserted breach of contract and concealment claims
against SMMS alleging that SMMS failed to fulfill its ongoing
obligation to monitor the financial advisors and the investments
they recommended to Plaintiffs and by failing to disclose that a
primary purpose of the seminars was to develop business for the
financial advisors. The Company denies all claims and vigorously
defended this case at trial.

During trial, the Court ruled that SMMS had duties to Plaintiffs
and Fireman's Fund that it breached. On December 12, 2014, the
Court issued a Statement of Decision in which it awarded damages
in the aggregate of $36.8 to Plaintiffs and $7.5 to Fireman's
Fund. The Company objects to the Court's decisions and the
Statement of Decision on the grounds that they are inconsistent
with California law and the evidence presented at trial. On
January 7, 2015, the Court made final the award in favor of the
Plaintiffs. The Company filed an appellate bond that stays
execution of that judgment while a motion for new trial and appeal
are pursued. The Court will hold a hearing in the second quarter
of 2015 regarding whether to award punitive damages to Fireman's
Fund.


WEATHERBY INC: "Fiant" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen W. Fiant as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Weatherby, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02991
(C.D. Cal., April 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Weatherby, Inc. owns and operates a manufacturing facility that
manufactures firearms in San Luis Obispo County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
      Roxana E. Khan, Esq.
      Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Esq.
      BALTODANO AND BALTODANO LLP
      1411 Marsh Street Suite 102
      San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
      Telephone: (805) 322-3412
      Facsimile: (805) 322-3413
      E-mail: efb@bbemploymentlaw.com
              rek@bbemploymentlaw.com
              hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com

         - and -

      Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
      BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: fschmidt@bollaw.com
              phaines@bollaw.com


WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Reached in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WesBanco Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties to a class
action reached a memorandum of settlement.

On October 29, 2014, ESB, and WesBanco entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), providing for the
merger of ESB with and into WesBanco, with WesBanco as the
surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Each of ESB and WesBanco
filed a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus, dated as of
December 11, 2014 (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), with
the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Merger. The Merger was consummated on February 10, 2015.

As previously reported by each of ESB and WesBanco on Current
Reports on Form 8-K, each dated December 15, 2014 and filed on
December 19, 2014, two putative class action complaints were filed
by purported shareholders of ESB with respect to the Merger. One
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Federal District Court"),
and is captioned and numbered James Elliott vs. ESB Financial,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01689-MRH (the "Federal Lawsuit").
The other complaint was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, and is captioned and numbered
Randall Kress v. ESB Bank, Case No. 11185/14 CA (the "Lawrence
County Lawsuit"). Both complaints alleged generally, among other
things, that each member of ESB's board of directors (the
"Director Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the Merger Agreement, that ESB and WesBanco aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and that the disclosure
regarding the Merger contained in the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus was materially deficient.

On January 15, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and
the Director Defendants (ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director
Defendants, collectively the "Defendants") entered into a
Memorandum of Settlement (the "MOS") with the respective
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") regarding the
settlement of both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County
Lawsuit. Pursuant to the MOS, ESB and WesBanco agreed to file with
the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of ESB and
WesBanco supplemental disclosures provided on Form 8-K and the
Plaintiffs agreed to release ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the
Director Defendants from all claims related to the Merger
Agreement and the Merger, subject to approval of the Federal
District Court. If the court approves the settlement contemplated
in the MOS, both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County
Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that were
or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger,
the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection
therewith will be released and barred. Under the terms of the MOS,
counsel for the Plaintiffs reserved the right to seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses. The Defendants have reserved the
right to contest the fee and expense petition. The amount of any
fees and expense awarded will ultimately be determined and
approved by the court, and will not affect the amount of merger
consideration paid by WesBanco. ESB or its successor or insurer
will pay any fees and expenses awarded by the court. In the MOS,
the parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare a
stipulation of settlement to be filed with the court and other
documentation as may be required to effectuate the settlement.

There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOS will
become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such
stipulation or the court does not approve the settlement.

The settlement did not affect the timing of the special meeting of
shareholders of ESB held January 22, 2015 in Ellwood City,
Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement. Similarly, the settlement did not affect the timing of
the special meeting of shareholders of WesBanco held January 22,
2015 in Wheeling, West Virginia to vote on a proposal to approve
the issuance of shares of WesBanco common stock in connection with
the Merger. The shareholders of both corporations approved the
Merger. ESB and the other Defendants deny all of the allegations
in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures previously included in
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus were appropriate under the
law. Nevertheless, ESB and the other Defendants have agreed to
settle the putative class action lawsuits in order to avoid the
costs, disruptions and distraction of further litigation.

ESB and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted
in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuits, and expressly
maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens
and entered into the MOS solely to eliminate the burden and
expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest. Nothing in the MOS or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth therein.


WORLD OMNI: Plaintiffs' Bid to Dismiss Complaint Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
World Omni Auto Receivables Trust 2014-B said in its Form 10-D
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 27, 2015, for the monthly distribution period from
January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2015, that in June 2014 a civil
complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
New York County, by a group of institutional investors against
U.S. Bank, in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the
case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities
("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs are investment funds formed by
nine investment advisors (AEGON, BlackRock, Brookfield, DZ Bank,
Kore, PIMCO, Prudential, Sealink and TIAA) that purport to be
bringing suit derivatively on behalf of 841 RMBS trusts that
issued $771 billion in original principal amount of securities
between 2004 and 2008.

According to the plaintiffs, cumulative losses for these RMBS
trusts equal $92.4 billion as of the date of the complaint. The
complaint is one of six similar complaints filed against RMBS
trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon
and Wells Fargo) by certain of these plaintiffs. The complaint
against U.S. Bank alleges the trustee caused losses to investors
as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan
sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and asserts causes of
action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce
repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged
breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan
quality. The complaint also asserts that the trustee failed to
notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly
caused by breaches by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee
purportedly failed to abide by appropriate standards of care
following events of default. Relief sought includes money damages
in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.

In November 2014, the plaintiffs sought leave to voluntarily
dismiss their original state court complaint and filed a
substantially similar complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The federal civil
complaint added a class action allegation and a change in the
total number of named trusts to 843 RMBS trusts. In December 2014,
the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state
court complaint was granted. Other cases alleging similar causes
of action have previously been filed against U.S. Bank and other
trustees by RMBS investors in other transactions.

There can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigation, or
the possible impact of the litigation on the trustee or the RMBS
trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it
has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith,
that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and
that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the
plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


                        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
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
--------------------------------------------------------------
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: Crane Co. Pays Three Judgments in Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. paid three judgments arising from adverse jury verdicts
in asbestos matters, 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 of December 31, 2014, the Company has paid three judgments
arising from adverse jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first
payment, in the amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14,
2008, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the
Joseph Norris matter in California, after the Company had
exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies. The second
payment, in the amount of $0.02 million, was made in June 2009
after an adverse verdict in the Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles,
California on April 21, 2009. The third payment, in the amount of
$0.9 million, was made in June 2014, approximately two years after
the adverse verdict in the William Paulus matter in California,
after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and appellate
remedies.

On March 9, 2012, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/8th share of a $123,000
verdict in the Frank Paasch claim. The Company and plaintiffs
filed post-trial motions. On May 31, 2012, on plaintiffs' motion,
the Court entered an order dismissing the claim against the
Company, with prejudice, and without any payment.

On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of
plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion
of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The
Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were
denied. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by
order dated February 21, 2014. The Company sought review of
certain aspects of the ruling before the California Supreme Court,
and review was denied. Having exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies, the Company in June 2014 paid to plaintiffs
the amount of $0.9 million, the judgment including interest, and
this amount is included in second quarter indemnity totals.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The
Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "Nelson" Suit vs. Crane Co. is Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal arising from a verdict in a lawsuit filed by James
Nelson against Crane Co. remains pending, 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.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim. On February 23,
2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount of
$0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the amount
of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company
resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the
settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson
verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new
trial. Plaintiffs requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and
by order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the
panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument. On December 23,
2014, the Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the
jury verdict. Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which defendants have opposed.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in NY Suit vs. Crane Co. Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in the lawsuit filed in a New York state court
against Crane Co. is scheduled to be heard this year, 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.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a
judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking
into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New
York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a
3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company has
appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The parties' briefing
has concluded and oral argument will be heard in 2015.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Resolves 107,000 Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., has resolved 107,000 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.

Cumulatively through December 31, 2014, the Company has resolved
(by settlement or dismissal) approximately 107,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred
by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $425
million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of
approximately $4,000. The average settlement cost per claim
resolved during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
was $3,800, $3,300 and $6,300, respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved
claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In addition to large group
dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement
amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from
period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos
liability.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., recorded $614 million 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.

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is
then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies), management
believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various
factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to
provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims,
the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years
beyond the indicated estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected over the past
five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos
claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and
the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have
both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the
updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven
quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease
category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer, and non-
malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In
addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company
also takes into account trends in the tort system.  Management
considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability
estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate
is warranted.

With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2011,
the Company updated and extended its estimate of the asbestos
liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments
and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future
claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2021. The
Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or
projected to be filed through 2017. As a result of this updated
estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of $285
million as of December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take
this action at such date was based on several factors which
contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this
liability for the additional period noted. First, the number of
mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 8%
of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for
approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and
defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated
settlement costs have recently stabilized. In the Company's
opinion, the outlook for mesothelioma claims expected to be filed
and resolved in the forecast period is reasonably stable. Second,
there have been favorable developments in the trend of case law
which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos
claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have
been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and
courts over the past several years that have reduced the number
and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a
significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity.
Fourth, the Company has now entered into coverage-in-place
agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables
the Company to project a more stable relationship between
settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and
reimbursements from its insurers. Taking all of these factors into
account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the
asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be
filed through 2021. While it is probable that the Company will
incur additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense
costs in excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company
does not believe that any such amount can be reasonably estimated
beyond 2021. Accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for any
costs which may be incurred for claims which may be made
subsequent to 2021.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
December 31, 2014, the Company's actual experience during the
updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and
dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's
liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the
Company considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors
such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant
appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their
respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on
this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the
estimate was warranted for the period ended December 31, 2014.
Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained
increase or decrease, the liability could change materially;
however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos
liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in
determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty
with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the
calculation of its asbestos liability, and since no one factor
predominates, the Company believes that a range of potential
liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be
reasonably estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011,
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $614 million as of December 31, 2014. It
is not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at December 31, 2014 was $79
million and represents the Company's best estimate of total
asbestos costs expected to be paid during the twelve-month period.
Such amount is based upon the HR&A model together with the
Company's prior year payment experience for both settlement and
defense costs.

Insurance Coverage and Receivables. Prior to 2005, a significant
portion of the Company's settlement and defense costs were paid by
its primary insurers. With the exhaustion of that primary
coverage, the Company began negotiations with its excess insurers
to reimburse the Company for a portion of its settlement and/or
defense costs as incurred. To date, the Company has entered into
agreements providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-
in-place", with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under such
coverage-in-place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in
force and the insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the
Company's present and future asbestos claims on specified terms
and conditions that address, among other things, the share of
asbestos claims costs to be paid by the insurer, payment terms,
claims handling procedures and the expiration of the insurer's
obligations. Similarly, under a variant of coverage-in-place, the
Company has entered into an agreement with a group of insurers
confirming the aggregate amount of available coverage under the
subject policies and setting forth a schedule for future
reimbursement payments to the Company based on aggregate indemnity
and defense payments made. In addition, with ten of its excess
insurer groups, the Company entered into policy buyout agreements,
settling all asbestos and other coverage obligations for an agreed
sum, totaling $82.5 million in aggregate. Reimbursements from
insurers for past and ongoing settlement and defense costs
allocable to their policies have been made in accordance with
these coverage-in-place and other agreements. All of these
agreements include provisions for mutual releases, indemnification
of the insurer and, for coverage-in-place, claims handling
procedures. With the agreements, the Company has concluded
settlements with all but one of its solvent excess insurers whose
policies are expected to respond to the aggregate costs included
in the updated liability estimate. That insurer, which issued a
single applicable policy, has been paying the shares of defense
and indemnity costs the Company has allocated to it, subject to a
reservation of rights. There are no pending legal proceedings
between the Company and any insurer contesting the Company's
asbestos claims under its insurance policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors noted by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating
risk mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or
other factors were not certain, the Company's insurance
consultants compiled a model indicating how the Company's
historical insurance policies would respond to varying levels of
asbestos settlement and defense costs and the allocation of such
costs between such insurers and the Company. Using the estimated
liability as of December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to
be filed through 2021), the insurance consultant's model
forecasted that approximately 25% of the liability would be
reimbursed by the Company's insurers. While there are overall
limits on the aggregate amount of insurance available to the
Company with respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were
not reached by the total estimated liability currently recorded by
the Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company
in its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion
of the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $147 million as of December 31, 2014.

The Company reviews the aforementioned estimated reimbursement
rate with its insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order
to confirm its overall consistency with the Company's established
reserves. The reviews encompass consideration of the performance
of the insurers under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect
of any additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout
agreements. Since December 2011, there have been no developments
that have caused the Company to change the estimated 25% rate,
although actual insurance reimbursements vary from period to
period, and will decline over time, for the reasons cited.

Uncertainties. Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for
asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties,
as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing,
severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their
resolution. The Company cautions that its estimated liability is
based on assumptions with respect to future claims, settlement and
defense costs based on past experience that may not prove reliable
as predictors. A significant upward or downward trend in the
number of claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged
injury, the jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the
product identification, or a significant upward or downward trend
in the costs of defending claims, could change the estimated
liability, as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that
withstand appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement
transaction, or significant change in relevant case law could also
change the estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable
settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also
affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a
number of additional factors. These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the
uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be
given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to
enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or
settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the
Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related
liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as
well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive
these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company
incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the
carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if
the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change
significantly, or if there are significant developments in the
trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or
another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company
is currently unable to estimate such future changes and,
accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur
additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in
excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not
believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond
2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years,
the effect on the results of operations, financial position and
cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates
could be material.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 104 Fibro Cases at Jan. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
There were 104 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX
Corporation and its subsidiaries as of January 31, 2015, 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: "Several of our subsidiaries have also been
named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises
liability or, in the case of ASC, the Jones Act, which provides
limited remedies to certain maritime employees. As of January 31,
2015, there were 104 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX
and its subsidiaries. Of the total number of pending cases, 87 are
Jones Act claims, most of which were filed against ASC before the
year 2000. During 2014, 7 new cases were filed, and 34 cases were
dismissed without payment or otherwise settled for an immaterial
amount. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for
asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries. It
is possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnity
could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, including
costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future."

GATX Corporation (GATX) leases, operates, manages and remarkets
assets, primarily in the rail and marine markets. The Company
operates through four primary business segments: Rail North
America, Rail International, American Steamship Company (ASC) and
Portfolio Management. Rail North America segment consists of its
wholly owned operations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico,
as well as two affiliate investments. Rail International segment
consists of its wholly owned European operations (Rail Europe) and
an established railcar leasing business in India (Rail India), as
well as one development stage affiliate in China. ASC segment
operates a fleet of Unied States flagged vessels on the Great
Lakes, providing waterborne transportation of dry bulk commodities
such as iron ore, coal, limestone aggregates, and metallurgical
limestone. Portfolio Management segment provides leasing,
shipping, asset remarketing and asset management services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Has 2,326 Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Inc. had 2,326 asbestos-related cumulative trauma
product liability 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: "MSA LLC, a subsidiary of MSA Safety
Incorporated (formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company),
categorizes the product liability losses that its various
subsidiaries experience into two main categories: single incident
and cumulative trauma. Single incident product liability claims
are discrete incidents that are typically known to us when they
occur and involve observable injuries which provide an objective
basis for quantifying damages. MSA LLC estimates its liability for
single incident product liability claims based on expected
settlement costs for pending claims and an estimate of costs for
unreported claims. The estimate for unreported claims is based on
experience, sales volumes and other relevant information. The
reserve for single incident product liability claims at December
31, 2014 and 2013 was $3.5 million and $4.0 million, respectively.
Single incident product liability expense during the years ended
December 31, 2014 and 2013 was not significant. Single incident
product liability exposures are evaluated on an ongoing basis and
adjustments are made to the reserve as appropriate.

"Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. MSA LLC is presently named as a defendant
in 2,326 lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. In
these lawsuits, plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain
cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve
respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by
MSA LLC or its predecessors.

"As of December 31, 2014, the Company had 2,326 cumulative trauma
product liability lawsuits.

"More than half of the open lawsuits at December 31, 2014 have had
a de minimis level of activity over the last 5 years. It is
possible that these cases could become active again at any point
due to changes in circumstances.

"Cumulative trauma product liability litigation has been difficult
to predict. In our experience, until late in a lawsuit, we cannot
reasonably determine whether it is probable that any of MSA LLC's
cumulative trauma lawsuits will ultimately result in a liability.
This uncertainty is caused by many factors, including the
following: cumulative trauma complaints generally do not provide
information sufficient to determine if a loss is probable;
cumulative trauma litigation is inherently unpredictable; and
information is often insufficient to determine if a lawsuit will
develop into an actively litigated case. Even when a case is
actively litigated, it is often difficult to determine if the
lawsuit will be dismissed or otherwise resolved until late in the
lawsuit. Moreover, even once it is probable that such a lawsuit
will result in a loss, it is often difficult to reasonably
estimate the amount of actual loss that will be incurred. These
amounts are highly variable and turn on a case-by-case analysis of
the relevant facts, which are often not learned until late in the
lawsuit. Consequently, MSA LLC has historically been unable to
estimate its cumulative trauma product liability exposure.

"As part of the company's ongoing assessment of the ability to
estimate MSA LLC's cumulative trauma product liability exposure
for both pending and unasserted claims, in the 2014 third quarter,
MSA LLC engaged an outside valuation consultant to assist with
this effort. This assessment was based on MSA LLC's cumulative
claims experience, including recent claims trends, and the
development of enhanced claims data analytics. The analysis
focused on claims made or resolved over the last several years as
these claims are likely to best represent future claim
characteristics.

"After extensive review by the valuation consultant, MSA LLC and
its outside counsel, it was determined that MSA LLC cannot
estimate its liability for cumulative trauma product liability
claims. This is a result of numerous factors, including annual
claims levels and indemnity payments that are highly variable and
a lack of consistency in the source of the claims. MSA LLC will
continue to regularly evaluate its ability to estimate its
cumulative trauma product liability exposure.

"During the 2014 fourth quarter and into January 2015, MSA LLC
settled a number of cumulative trauma cases for $71.8 million, the
vast majority of which were insured. The impact of these
settlements has been reflected in MSA Safety Incorporated's 2014
financial statements and in the roll-forward of lawsuits. As a
result of these settlements, at December 31, 2014, the cumulative
trauma product liability reserve totaled $74.9 million, most of
which will be paid equally over four quarters, beginning in the
2015 third quarter and ending in the 2016 second quarter. Of this
amount, $35.1 million was recorded in other non-current
liabilities and the remainder was recorded in the insurance and
product liability line in the current liabilities section of the
consolidated balance sheet. The cumulative trauma product
liability reserve totaled $5.6 million at December 31, 2013. All
of this amount was recorded in the insurance and product liability
line in the other current liabilities section of the consolidated
balance sheet. Because litigation is subject to inherent
uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could
occur, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately
incur charges in excess of presently recorded liabilities. Our
aggregate cumulative trauma product liability losses and
administrative and defense costs for the three years ended
December 31, 2014, totaled approximately $169.6 million,
substantially all of which was insured."

MSA Safety Inc., formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company, is
engaged in the development, manufacture and supply of products
that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of
safety products is used by workers worldwide in the fire service,
homeland security, oil and gas, construction and other industries,
as well as the military. Its product offering includes self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs), gas masks, gas detection
instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal imaging
cameras, fall protection and ballistic helmets. The Company also
offers consumer and contractor safety products through retail
channels. Its safety products integrate any combination of
electronics, mechanical systems and advanced materials to protect
users against hazardous or life threatening situations. Its Safety
Works, LLC joint venture provides a range of safety products and
gloves to the North American do-it-yourself and independent
contractor market through various channels.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cliffs Natural Resources Has 50 Fibro Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is a named defendant in 50 asbestos-
related 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: "The Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and/or The
Cleveland-Cliffs Steamship Company have been named defendants in
489 actions brought from 1986 to date by former seamen claiming
damages for various illnesses allegedly suffered as the result of
exposure to airborne asbestos fibers while serving as crew members
aboard the vessels previously owned or managed by our entities
until the mid-1980s. All of these actions have been consolidated
into multidistrict proceedings in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, along with approximately 30,000 other cases from
various jurisdictions that were filed against other defendants.
Through a series of court orders, the docket has been reduced to
approximately 3,500 active cases. We are a named defendant in
approximately 50 cases. These cases are in the discovery phase.
The court has dismissed the remainder of the cases without
prejudice. Those dismissed cases could be reinstated upon
application by plaintiffs' counsel. The claims against our
entities are insured in amounts that vary by policy year; however,
the manner in which coverage will be applied remains uncertain.
Our entities continue to vigorously contest these claims and have
made no settlements on them."

Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is an international mining and
natural resources company. The Company is an iron ore producer and
a producer of metallurgical coal. The Company's operations are
organized according to product category and geographic location:
U.S. Iron Ore, Eastern Canadian Iron Ore, North American Coal,
Asia Pacific Iron Ore, Asia Pacific Coal, Latin American Iron Ore,
Ferroalloys, and its Global Exploration Group. The Company
operates in four segments: U.S. Iron Ore, Eastern Canadian Iron
Ore, North American Coal and Asia Pacific Iron Ore. In the United
States, it operates five iron ore mines in Michigan and Minnesota,
five metallurgical coal mines located in West Virginia and Alabama
and one thermal coal mine located in West Virginia. It also
operates two iron ore mines in Eastern Canada that primarily
provide iron ore to the seaborne market for Asian steel producers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: XL Group Had 1,399 Claim Files at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
XL Group plc had 1,399 open claim files for potential discontinued
asbestos claims exposures, 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's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation
of the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to
discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental claims, including
related loss adjustment expenses. Liabilities are established to
cover both known and incurred but not reported claims. The
Company's reserving and exposures to environmental liability
business currently written within the NAPC and IPC business groups
are not included in this note, which only relates to specific
discontinued and/or run-off coverages that were not originally
written specifically to cover environmental hazards.
The Company's exposure to discontinued asbestos and run-off
environmental claims arises from the following three sources:

(1) Reinsurance contracts written, both on a proportional and
excess basis, after 1972. The Company discontinued writing
contracts with these exposures in 1985. Business written was
across many different policies, each with a relatively small
contract limit. The Company's reported asbestos claims relate to
both traditional products and premises and operations coverage.

(2) Winterthur -- business of Winterthur purchased by the Company
from AXA Insurance (formerly Winterthur Swiss Insurance Company)
in 2001. Pursuant to the Sale and Purchase Agreement and related
agreements, AXA Insurance reimburses the Company for all asbestos
losses.

(3) During 2006, the Company acquired $40.2 million in losses
through a loss portfolio transfer contract of which $18.3 million
in losses related to asbestos and environmental claims. Given the
terms of the policy, the combined aggregate limit on the total
acquired reserves is limited to $60.0 million, not including
coverage for claims handling costs over a defined period.

The Company's gross unpaid losses and loss expenses at end of year
2014 was $181,953 thousand.

Reserves for incurred but not reported losses, net of reinsurance,
were $49.3 million, $48.6 million and $52.2 million at December
31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Unpaid losses recoverable
are net of potential uncollectible amounts.

At December 31, 2014, the Company had 1,399 open claim files for
potential discontinued asbestos claims exposures and 459 open
claim files for potential run-off environmental claims exposures.
Approximately 46%, 37% and 42% of the open claim files are due to
precautionary claim notices in 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.
Precautionary claim notices are submitted by the ceding companies
in order to preserve their right to receive coverage under the
reinsurance contract. The increase in open claim files during 2014
was largely due to internal changes in how claims reported in
previous years were classified, which resulted in a higher number
of precautionary claims opened during the year.

Such notices do not contain an incurred loss amount to the
Company. The development of the number of open claim files for
potential discontinued asbestos were 1,399.

The Company's reserving process includes a continuing evaluation
of the potential impact on unpaid liabilities from exposure to
discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental claims, including
related loss adjustment expenses. Liabilities are established to
cover both known and incurred but not reported claims.

The estimation of loss and loss expense liabilities for
discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental exposures is
subject to much greater uncertainty than is normally associated
with the establishment of liabilities for certain other exposures
due to several factors, including: (i) uncertain legal
interpretation and application of insurance and reinsurance
coverage and liability; (ii) the lack of reliability of available
historical claims data as an indicator of future claims
development; (iii) an uncertain political climate which may
impact, among other areas, the nature and amount of costs for
remediating waste sites; and (iv) the potential of insurers and
reinsurers to reach agreements in order to avoid further
significant legal costs. Due to the potential significance of
these uncertainties, the Company believes that no meaningful range
of loss and loss expense liabilities beyond recorded reserves can
be established. As the Company's net unpaid loss and loss expense
reserves related to discontinued asbestos and run-off
environmental exposures are less than 1% of the total net reserves
at December 31, 2014 and 2013, further adverse development is not
expected to be material to the Company's overall net loss
reserves. The Company believes it has made reasonable provision
for its discontinued asbestos and run-off environmental exposures
and is unaware of any specific issues that would significantly
affect its estimate for loss and loss expenses.

XL Group plc, through its subsidiaries, is a global insurance and
reinsurance company providing property, casualty and specialty
products to industrial, commercial and professional firms,
insurance companies and other enterprises on a worldwide basis.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFG Had $366-Mil. A&E Reserves at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc.'s property and casualty group's
gross asbestos and environmental-related ("A&E") reserves was $366
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.

Asbestos reserves include claims asserting alleged injuries and
damages from exposure to asbestos. Environmental reserves include
claims relating to polluted waste sites.

Asbestos claims against manufacturers, distributors or installers
of asbestos products were presented under the products liability
section of their policies which typically had aggregate limits
that capped an insurer's liability. In recent years, a number of
asbestos claims are being presented as "non-products" claims, such
as those by installers of asbestos products and by property owners
or operators who allegedly had asbestos on their property, under
the premises or operations section of their policies. Unlike
products exposures, these non-products exposures typically had no
aggregate limits, creating potentially greater exposure for
insurers. Further, in an effort to seek additional insurance
coverage, some insureds with installation activities who have
substantially eroded their products coverage are presenting new
asbestos claims as non-products operations claims or attempting to
reclassify previously settled products claims as non-products
claims to restore a portion of previously exhausted products
aggregate limits. AFG, along with other insurers, is and will be
subject to such non-products claims. It is difficult to predict
whether insureds will be successful in asserting claims under non-
products coverage or whether AFG and other insurers will be
successful in asserting additional defenses. Therefore, the future
impact of such efforts is uncertain.

Approximately 39% of AFG's net asbestos reserves relate to
policies written directly by AFG subsidiaries. Claims from these
policies generally are product oriented claims with only a limited
amount of non-products exposures, and are dominated by small to
mid-sized commercial entities that are mostly regional
policyholders with few national target defendants. The remainder
is assumed reinsurance business that includes exposures for the
periods 1954 to 1983. The asbestos and environmental assumed
claims are ceded by various insurance companies under reinsurance
treaties. A majority of the individual assumed claims have
exposures of less than $100,000 to AFG. Asbestos losses assumed
include some of the industry known manufacturers, distributors and
installers. Pollution losses include industry known insured names
and sites.

Establishing reserves for A&E claims relating to policies and
participations in reinsurance treaties and former operations is
subject to uncertainties that are significantly greater than those
presented by other types of claims. For this group of claims,
traditional actuarial techniques that rely on historical loss
development trends cannot be used and a range of reasonably
possible losses cannot be estimated. Case reserves and expense
reserves are established by the claims department as specific
policies are identified. In addition to the case reserves
established for known claims, management establishes additional
reserves for claims not yet known or reported and for possible
development on known claims. These additional reserves are
management's best estimate based on periodic comprehensive studies
and internal reviews adjusted for payments and identifiable
changes, supplemented by management's review of industry
information about such claims, with due consideration to
individual claim situations.

Management believes that estimating the ultimate liability for
asbestos claims presents a unique and difficult challenge to the
insurance industry due to, among other things, inconsistent court
decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of
asbestos-related liabilities, novel theories of coverage, and
judicial interpretations that often expand theories of recovery
and broaden the scope of coverage. The casualty insurance industry
is engaged in extensive litigation over these coverage and
liability issues as the volume and severity of claims against
asbestos defendants continue to increase. Environmental claims
likewise present challenges in prediction, due to uncertainty
regarding the interpretation of insurance policies, complexities
regarding multi-party involvements at sites, evolving cleanup
standards and protracted time periods required to assess the level
of cleanup required at contaminated sites.

The following factors could impact AFG's reserves and payments:

   * There is a growing interest at the state level to attempt to
legislatively address asbestos liabilities and the manner in which
asbestos claims are resolved. These developments are fluid and
could result in piecemeal state-by-state solutions.

   * The manner by which bankruptcy courts are addressing asbestos
liabilities is in flux.

   * AFG's insureds may make claims alleging significant non-
products exposures.

While management believes that AFG's reserves for A&E claims are a
reasonable estimate of ultimate liability for such claims, actual
results may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded
due to the difficulty in predicting the number of future claims,
the impact of recent bankruptcy filings, and unresolved issues
such as whether coverage exists, whether policies are subject to
aggregate limits on coverage, how claims are to be allocated among
triggered policies and implicated years, and whether claimants who
exhibit no signs of illness will be successful in pursuing their
claims. A 1% variation in loss cost trends, caused by any of the
factors, would change net income by approximately $13 million.

AFG tracks its A&E claims by policyholder. Policyholder counts
represent policies written by AFG subsidiaries and do not include
assumed reinsurance.

The Company had 310 total A&E policyholders were 310 for the year
ended December 31, 2014.

The Company paid a total of $36 million for asbestos and
environmental claims, including loss adjustment expenses.

The survival ratio is a measure often used by industry analysts to
compare A&E reserves strength among companies. This ratio is
typically calculated by dividing reserves for A&E exposures by the
three year average of paid losses, and therefore measures the
number of years that it would take to pay off current reserves
based on recent average payments. Because this ratio can be
significantly impacted by a number of factors such as loss payout
variability, caution should be exercised in attempting to
determine reserve adequacy based simply on the survival ratio. At
December 31, 2014, the property and casualty insurance segment's
three year survival ratios, excluding amounts associated with the
settlements of A.P. Green Industries and another large claim, were
14.2 times paid losses for the asbestos reserves, 5.8 times paid
losses for environmental reserves and 9.6 times paid losses for
total A&E reserves. Overall, these ratios compare favorably with
data published by A.M. Best in December 2014, which indicate that
industry survival ratios were 10.1 for asbestos, 6.3 for
environmental, and 9.1 for total A&E reserves at December 31,
2013.

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

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

As a result of the comprehensive external study completed in the
third quarter of 2013, AFG's property and casualty insurance
segment recorded a $54 million pretax special charge to increase
its asbestos reserves by $16 million (net of reinsurance) and its
environmental reserves by $38 million (net of reinsurance). The
increase in the property and casualty segment's asbestos reserves
was driven primarily by slightly higher than expected loss
experience, higher defense costs and some increased claim
severity. The increase in property and casualty environmental
reserves was attributed primarily to a small number of claims
where the estimated costs of remediation have increased.

As a result of the in-depth internal review completed in 2012, AFG
recorded a $31 million pretax special charge to increase the
property and casualty segment's asbestos reserves by $19 million
(net of reinsurance) and its environmental reserves by $12 million
(net of reinsurance). The charge relates primarily to an increase
in environmental investigative costs and related loss adjustment
expenses.

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


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Has 400 Fibro Exposure Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation has 400 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.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts
primarily in Texas and Louisiana, primarily by contractor
employees who worked in the 1940-1980s timeframe, against Entergy
Gulf States Louisiana and Entergy Texas, and to a lesser extent
the other Utility operating companies, as premises owners of power
plants, for damages caused by alleged exposure to asbestos. Many
other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well. Currently,
there are approximately 400 lawsuits involving approximately 4,000
claimants. Management believes that adequate provisions have been
established to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations
continue with insurers to recover reimbursements. Management
believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be
handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results
of operation, or cash flows of the Utility operating companies.

Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged
primarily in electric power production and retail electric
distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants
with approximately 30,000 MW of aggregate electric generating
capacity, including nearly 10,000 MW of nuclear-fueled capacity.
Entergy's Utility business delivers electricity to 2.8 million
utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Fibro Suits vs. Transocean Ltd. Remain in La.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four asbestos-related lawsuits remain pending against Transocean
Ltd. and its 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: "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were
named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in 21
complaints filed on behalf of 769 plaintiffs in the Circuit Courts
of the State of Mississippi and which claimed injuries arising out
of exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in drilling mud during
these plaintiffs' employment in drilling activities between 1965
and 1986. The complaints generally allege that the defendants used
or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use
in connection with drilling operations and have included
allegations of negligence, products liability, strict liability
and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
In each of these cases, the complaints have named other
unaffiliated defendant companies, including companies that
allegedly manufactured the drilling-related products that
contained asbestos. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court-
appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer
defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. After
ten years of litigation, this group of cases has been winnowed to
the point where now only 15 plaintiffs' individual claims
remaining pending in Mississippi in which we have or may have an
interest.

"During the year ended December 31, 2014, a group of lawsuits
premised on the same allegations as those in Mississippi were
filed in Louisiana. As of December 31, 2014, 20 plaintiffs have
claims pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in four
different lawsuits in Louisiana.

"We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can
provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have
maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain
whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out
of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date,
we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these
claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
statement of financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Ltd. Unit Has 902 Exposure Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was a defendant in 902
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: "One of our subsidiaries was involved in
lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's involvement in the
design, construction and refurbishment of major industrial
complexes. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and
its operations discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no
remaining assets other than the insurance policies involved in its
litigation, with its insurers and, either directly or indirectly
through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has been named
as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits
alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure
to asbestos. As of December 31, 2014, the subsidiary was a
defendant in approximately 902 lawsuits, some of which include
multiple plaintiffs, and we estimate that there are approximately
1,702 plaintiffs in these lawsuits. For many of these lawsuits, we
have not been provided with sufficient information from the
plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have
claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or
the nature of their alleged injuries. The first of the asbestos-
related lawsuits was filed against the subsidiary in 1990. Through
December 31, 2014, the costs incurred to resolve claims, including
both defense fees and expenses and settlement costs, have not been
material, all known deductibles have been satisfied or are
inapplicable, and the subsidiary's defense fees and expenses and
settlement costs have been met by insurance made available to the
subsidiary. The subsidiary continues to be named as a defendant in
additional lawsuits, and we cannot predict the number of
additional cases in which it may be named a defendant nor can we
predict the potential costs to resolve such additional cases or to
resolve the pending cases. However, the subsidiary has in excess
of $1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the
subsidiary. Although not all of the policies may be fully
available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe
that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or
indirectly from settlements and claims payments from insurers,
assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement
agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. While we
cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these
matters, we do not believe that the ultimate liability, if any,
arising from these claims will have a material impact on our
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Transocean Ltd. is an international provider of offshore contract
drilling services for oil and gas wells.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Has 240 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending 240 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 defending approximately 240 lawsuits
in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result
of exposure to asbestos. The complaints in these cases typically
name a large number of defendants and do not identify any of our
particular products as a source of asbestos exposure. As of
December 31, 2014, discovery has failed to yield evidence of
substantial exposure to any of our products and no judgments have
been entered against us."

Watts Water Technologies, Inc. (Watts) is a provider of water
quality, water conservation, water safety and water flow control
products for the residential and commercial markets in the
Americas and EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa). The Company
operates in Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific. The Company's
manufacturing facilities, such as Mexico, China, Bulgaria and
Tunisia. The Company sells its products to plumbing, heating and
mechanical wholesale distributors, do-it-yourself (DIY) and
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The Company's products
include Residential and commercial flow control, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and gas, Drains and water
re-use, and Water quality products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Had 7,975 Fibro Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation had 7,975 pending 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.

As of December 31, 2014, the Company was a party to 1,109 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,992 claimants primarily alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials
formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise)
manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries. For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company had
7,975 pending claims.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,992 claims pending at December 31, 2014,
117 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those
stating the statutory minimum or maximum).

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been
approximately $7.4 million. All relief sought in the asbestos
cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the
Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective
February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage-in-place
agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the
coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims
when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in-place
agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity insurance
coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed
by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration
of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely
that there will be a period within the next one or two years,
prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and
following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage,
during which the Company likely will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would
be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims
dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the
Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not
bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based
upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in
annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other
available information (including the availability of excess
insurance), the Company does not believe that these cases will
have a material adverse effect on its financial position and
results of operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer and
distributor of applied products for commercial, industrial and
consumer markets. The Company provides the foundation for
determining its priorities, executing its growth and productivity
initiatives, and allocating capital. It operates six segments:
Packaging, designs, manufactures and distributes specialty,
highly-engineered closure and dispensing systems for end markets;
Energy, manufactures and distributes metallic and non-metallic
gaskets, bolts, industrial fasteners and specialty products for
industrial markets; Aerospace and Defense, design and manufacture
products for use in focused markets; Engineered Components,
design, manufacture and distribute high-pressure and low-pressure
cylinders for the transportation, storage and dispensing of
compressed gases; Cequent APEA and Cequent Americas, design,
manufacture and distribute custom-engineered towing, trailer and
cargo management products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Corp. Had $290.1-Mil. Fibro Reserves
------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corporation recorded $290.1 million for asbestos-related
reserves, 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, 2014, asbestos-related reserves were $290.1
million and $218.9 million on a gross and net basis, respectively.
Net reserves for reported claims and net incurred but not reported
reserves for A&E exposures were $173.8 million and $113.9 million,
respectively, at December 31, 2014. Inception-to-date net paid
losses and loss adjustment expenses for A&E related exposures
totaled $415.7 million at December 31, 2014, which includes $85.7
million of litigation-related expense.

The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of
ultimate settlement values. A&E reserves are monitored by
management, and the Company's statistical analysis of these
reserves is reviewed by the Company's independent actuaries. A&E
exposures are subject to significant uncertainty due to potential
loss severity and frequency resulting from the uncertain and
unfavorable legal climate. A&E reserves could be subject to
increases in the future; however, management believes the
Company's gross and net A&E reserves at December 31, 2014 are
adequate.

Markel Corporation is financial holding company serving a markets.
The Company markets and underwrites specialty insurance products.
It also own interests in various industrial and service businesses
that operate outside of the specialty insurance marketplace. The
Company operates in four segments: Excess and Surplus Lines,
Specialty Admitted, London markets and Alterra segment. Excess and
Surplus Lines business is written through two distribution
channels, professional surplus lines general agents who have
limited quoting and binding authority and wholesale brokers.
Specialty Admitted business is written by retail insurance agents
who have limited underwriting authority. London Insurance Market
segment participates in the London market through Markel
International. Alterra segment provides specialty insurance and
reinsurance products to corporations, public entities and other
property and casualty insurers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Inc. Had 68,460 PI Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., had 68,460 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.

MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits
principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both
actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued
liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the
business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally
have focused on allegations with respect to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately
the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however,
is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number
of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.
Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
-- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products
that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on
any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend
aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including
defending claims at trials.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company had 68,460
asbestos-related personal injury claims.

The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount
paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability
estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to
resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending
and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in
a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not
yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include:
(i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims;
and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.
These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved
in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through
December 31, 2014. The frequency and severity of claims relating
to asbestos have increased, and MLIC has reflected this in its
provisions. Accordingly, MLIC increased its recorded liability for
asbestos-related claims to $690 million at December 31, 2014.

MetLife, Inc., is a provider of insurance, annuities and employee
benefit programs, serving 90 million customers in over 50
countries. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife
operates in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia Pacific,
Europe and the Middle East. It is organized into six segments:
Insurance Products, Retirement Products, Corporate Benefit Funding
and Auto & Home (collectively, the United States Business), and
Japan and Other International Regions (collectively,
International). In addition, the Company reports certain of its
results of operations in Corporate & Other, which includes MetLife
Bank, National Association (MetLife Bank) and other business
activities. The United States Business provides insurance and
financial services products, including life, dental, disability,
auto and homeowner insurance, guaranteed interest and stable value
products, and annuities through independent retail distribution
channels, as well as at the workplace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Has 42 Fibro Suits at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Noble Corporation plc is a defendant in 42 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 from time to time a party to various
lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the
claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for
personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities.
At December 31, 2014, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in
which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been
filed in the United States in the states of Illinois, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas. We intend to vigorously defend against the
litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these
matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."

Noble Corporation plc is an offshore drilling contractor for the
oil and gas industry. The Company performs contract drilling
services through its subsidiaries. In August 2014, the Company
announced that it has completed the spin-off of Paragon Offshore
plc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., continues to defend itself against numerous
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 has been named, along with numerous other
nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various
states involving asbestos and/or silica. These lawsuits typically
assert claims of personal injury arising from alleged exposure to
asbestos and/or silica as a consequence of products purportedly
distributed by the Company. In 2014, the Company was named in new
lawsuits relating to asbestos involving approximately 68 new
plaintiffs, while lawsuits relating to asbestos and/or silica
involving approximately 1,293 plaintiffs were dismissed with
respect to the Company, typically based on the lack of product
identification.

As of January 16, 2015, the Company is named in cases filed on
behalf of approximately 1,376 plaintiffs in which there is an
allegation of exposure to asbestos and/or silica. The Company has
denied, or intends to deny, the allegations in all of the
lawsuits. If a specific product distributed by the Company is
identified in any of these lawsuits, the Company would attempt to
exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer. In addition, the Company believes that a substantial
number of these claims are covered by insurance. The Company has
entered into agreements with its major insurance carriers relating
to the scope, coverage and costs of defense of lawsuits involving
claims of exposure to asbestos. While the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits, it believes that the
ultimate resolution will not have, either individually or in the
aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position or results of operations.

From time to time the Company is involved in various other legal
and administrative proceedings that are incidental to its
business, including claims related to product liability, general
negligence, contract disputes, environmental issues, wage and hour
laws, intellectual property, employment practices, regulatory
compliance or other matters and actions brought by employees,
consumers, competitors, suppliers or governmental entities. As a
government contractor selling to federal, state and local
governmental entities, the Company is also subject to governmental
or regulatory inquiries or audits or other proceedings, including
those related to pricing compliance. It is not expected that the
ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have, either
individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., is a broad-line distributor of maintenance,
repair and operating (MRO) supplies and other related products and
services used by businesses and institutions in the United States
and Canada, with a presence in Europe, Asia and Latin America. The
Company's two reportable segments are the United States and
Canada. Other businesses include operations in Europe, Asia, Latin
America and other U.S. operations. The Company serves more than 2
million customers worldwide through a network of integrated
branches, distribution centers, websites and export services. The
Company has centralized business support functions that provide
coordination and guidance in the areas of accounting and finance,
business development, communications and investor relations,
compensation and benefits, information systems, health and safety,
global supply chain functions, human resources, risk management,
internal audit, legal, real estate, security, tax and treasury.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Had 11,000 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation had 11,000 pending premises and product 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: "Like hundreds of other industrial companies,
we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal
injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of
FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or
equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. The
machinery and equipment businesses we owned or operated did not
fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the
litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety
and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency
has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-
containing parts for this machinery and equipment were accessible
only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. A few
jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against equipment
manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other companies
on such machinery and equipment. We believe that, overall, the
claims against FMC are without merit.

"As of December 31, 2014, there were approximately 11,000 premises
and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several
jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, approximately 106,000 asbestos
claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming majority
of which have been dismissed without any payment to the claimant.
Since the 1980s, settlements by us with claimants have totaled
approximately $63.6 million.

"We intend to continue managing these asbestos-related cases in
accordance with our historical experience. We have established a
reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and
believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established
reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. Our experience has been
that the overall trends in terms of the rate of filing of
asbestos-related claims with respect to all potential defendants
has changed over time, and that filing rates as to us in
particular have varied significantly over the last several years.
We are a peripheral defendant - that is, we have never
manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing components. As a
result, claim filing rates against us have yet to form a
predictable pattern, and we are unable to project a reasonably
accurate future filing rate and thus, we are presently unable to
reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims
that may be filed in the future."

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products.
The Company operates in three distinct business segments: FMC
Agricultural Solutions, FMC Health and Nutrition and FMC Minerals.
The Company's FMC Agricultural Solutions segment develops, markets
and sells all three major classes of crop protection chemicals:
insecticides, herbicides and fungicides. The FMC Health and
Nutrition segment focuses on food, pharmaceutical ingredients,
nutraceuticals, personal care and similar markets. The Company's
food ingredients are used to enhance texture, color, structure and
physical stability. The pharmaceutical additives are used for
binding, encapsulation and disintegrant applications. The
Company's FMC Minerals segment manufactures a wide range of
inorganic materials, including soda ash and lithium.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Had 3,821 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., was defending 3,821 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.

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

"We were defending 3,821 claims as of December 31, 2014.

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

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

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements
under a standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2014,
we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,225
claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $9.2 million.
Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The
Company's insurer has confirmed that although coverage limits
under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have
been exhausted, there still remains approximately $3 million in
coverage under other applicable primary policies, and $140 million
in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that should be
available for current and future asbestos claims."

Albany International Corp., is an advanced textiles and materials
processing company. The Company operates through two business
segments: The Machine Clothing (MC) segment and The Albany
Engineered Composites segment (AEC). The Machine Clothing (MC)
segment includes paper machine clothing, engineered fabrics and
belts used in the manufacture of paper and paperboard as well as
engineered fabrics and belts used in many other industrial
applications. The Company is engaged in design, manufacture, and
market paper machine clothing for each section of the paper
machine. The Albany Engineered Composites segment (AEC), including
Albany Safran Composites, LLC (ASC), in which its customer SAFRAN
Group owns a 10% noncontrolling interest, provides custom-designed
advanced composite structures based on proprietary technology to
customers in the aerospace and defense industries. AEC's largest
development program relates to the LEAP engine being developed by
CFM International.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Had 2,125 Fibro Cases at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., had 2,125 outstanding asbestos-
related 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: "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which
we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a
discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake
business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the
seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the
related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities
for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate
exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on
or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and
defense thereof. At December 31, 2014, approximately 2,125 cases
were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related
liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through December
31, 2014, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately
$17.6 million.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have
considered various factors including, among other things, an
actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by
an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether
there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits
are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.
As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial
consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related
liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The
methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs
in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available
from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent
claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future;
(3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an
analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average
settlement values.

"The most recent actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2014. The updated study has estimated an undiscounted liability
for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential
recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $36.1 million to
$55.4 million for the period through 2058. The change from the
prior year study was an $11.7 million increase for the low end of
the range and an $18 million increase for the high end of the
range. The increase in the estimated undiscounted liability from
the prior year study at both the low end and high end of the range
reflects historical data and certain assumptions with respect to
events that may occur in the future. Based on the information
contained in the actuarial study and all other available
information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount
within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any
other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we
compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to
determine if an adjustment is required. Based upon the results of
the August 31, 2014 actuarial study, in September 2014 we
increased our asbestos liability to $36.1 million, the low end of
the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of $12.8
million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations. Legal costs, which are
expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from
discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of
operations, are estimated, according to the updated study, to
range from $43 million to $76.4 million for the period through
2058.

"We plan to perform an annual actuarial evaluation during the
third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Given the
uncertainties associated with projecting such matters into the
future and other factors outside our control, we can give no
assurance that additional provisions will not be required. We will
continue to monitor the circumstances surrounding these potential
liabilities in determining whether additional provisions may be
necessary. At the present time, however, we do not believe that
any additional provisions would be reasonably likely to have a
material adverse effect on our liquidity or consolidated financial
position."

Standard Motor Products, Inc., manufactures and distributes
replacement parts for motor vehicles in the automotive aftermarket
industry. The Company is organized into two major operating
segments, each of which focuses on specific lines of replacement
parts. The Company's Engine Management Segment manufactures
ignition and emission parts, ignition wires, battery cables, fuel
system parts and sensors for vehicle systems. The Company's
Temperature Control Segment manufactures and remanufactures air
conditioning compressors, air conditioning and heating parts,
engine cooling system parts, power window accessories, and
windshield washer system parts. The Company sells its products to
warehouse distributors, large retail chains, original equipment
manufacturers and original equipment service part operations in
the United States, Canada and Latin America.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tort Reforms Groups Back Fibro Litigation Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Lawyer reports that tort reform groups are backing a bill to
reform asbestos litigation procedures, while Bryan Blevins,
president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, is criticizing
it for creating a mismatch between plaintiffs and defendants.

House Bill 1492 author Rep. Doug Miller, R-New Braunfels, told
members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee
there is a loophole in current law: Some asbestos plaintiffs first
file a lawsuit, and, after that suit is resolved, they file a
compensation claim with bankruptcy trusts.  The practice creates
an opportunity for fraud and "double dipping," said Mr. Miller,
adding that his bill would address the issue by requiring a
plaintiff to file a bankruptcy claim first.

The Senate State Affairs Committee scheduled a public hearing on
April 13 for a similar bill, Senate Bill 491, by Sen. Charles
Schwertner, R-Georgetown.

Nathan Horne of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal
Reform represents defendants in asbestos litigation.  He said that
if a defendant knew the amount a plaintiff stood to collect from
bankruptcy trusts, the defendant would use the information in
settlement talks.  The defendant would also learn the plaintiff's
exposure history, helping to show the defendant wasn't totally
responsible for an injury.

But Mr. Blevins, who represents asbestos plaintiffs, said some
asbestos victims die within six to 18 months of diagnosis.  If a
client is dying, his lawyer's focus is to get his day in court, he
said.

The bill would allow a defendant to stop the trial, force a
plaintiff to produce evidence in the bankruptcy trust claims and
allow the defendant to use that evidence against the plaintiff,
said Blevins.

According to the National Cancer Institute at the National
Institutes of Health, asbestos comes from naturally occurring
minerals and is found in construction products like insulation and
ceiling tiles.  Asbestos exposure can cause cancer and lung
disorders, among other ailments.

Companies responsible for creating asbestos or silica products
that have gone bankrupt create trusts to compensate people who
became ill due to exposure.

Bill's Provisions

Under Committee Substitute House Bill 1492, a claimant would have
to give notice of trust claims and documentation to each party in
a lawsuit.  If a plaintiff had already won a judgment but didn't
give the notice, then the defendant could ask a court for a
sanction, "including vacating the judgment and ordering a new
trial."

The bill would authorize a defendant to file a motion to stay
proceedings in a court if he thought the claimant could make a
trust claim instead.  If a plaintiff were to argue it would cost
more to make that claim than he stood to recover, the bill would
allow the court to order the plaintiff to "provide the court with
a verified statement of the exposed person's exposure history."

The bill provides that a defendant can use a trust claim and
documentation to argue that something else caused the injury and
that others were responsible.

In cases where a claimant had already won a judgment in court, a
defendant could file a motion for the court to modify the judgment
to subtract any later trust payments, according to the bill.

Testimony

Committee members called for testimony from Multidistrict
Litigation Judge Mark Davidson, who sat in the audience waiting
for another bill's hearing.  He said he would answer questions but
he did not take any position on CSHB 1492.

Committee member Rep. Travis Clardy, R-Nacogdoches, who represents
defendants in asbestos litigation, said he's practiced before
Davidson. In his experience, Mr. Clardy said, if Davidson wanted a
party to produce certain evidence, it happened.  Mr. Clardy asked
Davidson whether there was a problem that the bill would solve.

Judge Davidson said state law mandates a trial within six months
for asbestos cases.  To comply, he created a 40-page case
management order requiring a plaintiff to disclose his work and
health records to start the clock for the six-month trial. The
plaintiff must also disclose trust claims, he added.

Judge Davidson said that allowing a defendant to stay a proceeding
might conflict with the six-month trial requirement.

Part of the bill that allows claims information to prove what
caused an injury seems to overrule a Texas Supreme Court ruling,
BorgWarner v. Flores, which requires plaintiffs to prove their
dose of asbestos exposure.  Judge Davidson said if lawmakers were
trying to overrule BorgWarner, he would appreciate more details
and commentary.

"I will follow your policy but I would simply ask you to give me
some clarification," said Judge Davidson.

Mr. Blevins took issue with the same provision in the bill.  He
explained that BorgWarner makes a plaintiff prove a very high
standard: the number of asbestos fibers that he breathed in from
the defendants' product.  Defendants currently must meet the same
standard to bring in a responsible third party, he said.

But the bill would change the standard for defendants by allowing
them to use trust claims to prove causation, while plaintiffs
would still have to meet the higher standard, said Mr. Blevins.
It would create a great mismatch in the asbestos litigation
system, he said.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform and the Texas Civil Justice League also
supported the bill in the hearing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Watts" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in a memorandum and order dated
April 16, 2015, denied Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss the asbestos-
related lawsuit styled STEVEN WATTS, Plaintiff, v. 84 LUMBER
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-0327-SMY-SCW (S.D.
Ill.), after determining that, in this case, the Plaintiff has
provided specific locations, specific states, and specific time
periods allowing the Defendants ample notice of the Plaintiff's
claims and the grounds for those claims.  A full-text copy of
Judge Yandle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/1I1Hc2from
Leagle.com.

Steven Watts, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli
Bern, et al., Christopher Fonville, Napoli Bern et al. & Ryan P.
Horace, Napoli Bern, et al..

84 Lumber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Gary
L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP &
Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Asbestos Corporation LTD., Defendant, represented by Anthony M.
Goldner, Wilson Elser et al..

Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP &
Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Burnham LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D.
Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Cameron International Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Carver Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by
Leslie G. Offergeld, Walker & Williams.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy
Rae Hansen, Johnson & Bell LTD. & Robert Spitkovsky, Jr., Johnson
& Bell.

Cicor Instrumentation Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson,
Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Erin Renee Griebel, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. &
Meredith S Hudgens, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

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

Excelsior Packing & Gaskets, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert,
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP, IL.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Stephanie Tomal,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC,
Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli
PC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D.
Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

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

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Sean
P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

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

Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Metallo Gasket Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Matthew J. Morris, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. &
Georgiann Oliver, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al..

Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John M.
Ward, Hawkins, Parnell et al. & Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins, Parnell
et al..

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. &
Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Paul P. Waller,
III, Walker & Williams.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Riley Power, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D.
Schag, Heyl, Royster et al..

RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, represented by Marcie J.
Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D.
Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Michael D.
Schag, Heyl, Royster et al.

Weil-McLain, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.

William Powell Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
Stephanie Tomal, Segal, McCambridge et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Silver's Bid to Junk Indictment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ruled in an April 10, 2015
memorandum opinion and order that "[a]lthough the Court does not
condone the U.S. Government's brinksmanship relative to Defendant
Sheldon Silver's fair trial rights or the media blitz orchestrated
by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the days following Mr. Silver's
arrest, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment based on
allegedly improper and prejudicial extrajudicial statements by the
U.S. Attorney is denied."

To recall, on Jan. 21, 2015, the Government filed a 35-page,
single-spaced, sealed Complaint before Chief Magistrate Judge
Maas, charging Defendant Silver, the then-Speaker of the New York
Assembly, with honest services fraud, conspiracy and extortion.
Finding probable cause, Magistrate Judge Maas issued an arrest
warrant.  In the weeks prior to the issuance of the arrest
warrant, there had been numerous newspaper articles reporting on
the U.S. Attorney's investigation, including lengthy investigative
journalism pieces on Silver's relationship with Weitz & Luxenberg
and with Goldberg & Iryami.  Shortly after midnight on January 22,
although the Government's Complaint had not yet been unsealed, the
press began reporting that that Silver would be arrested
imminently along with the substance of the charges against him.

The case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SHELDON SILVER,
Defendant, NO. 15-CR-93 (VEC)(S.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Caproni's Decision is available at http://is.gd/7vZzkufrom
Leagle.com.

Sheldon Silver, Defendant, represented by Joel Cohen, Esq. --
jcohen@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Joel Barry
Rudin, Law Offices of Joel B. Rudin, Justin Vaun Shur, Esq. --
jshur@mololamken.com -- Mololamken, LLP, Steven Francis Molo, Esq.
-- smolo@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken, LLP & Robert Kelsey Kry,
Esq. -- rkry@mololamken.com -- Molo Lamken LLP.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Daniel Goldstein, United
States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie Heather Cohen, U.S.
Attorney's Office, SDNY, Howard Seth Master, U.S. Attorney's
Office, SDNY & James M. McDonald, Us Doj.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of "Sterling" Suit vs. P&H Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated April 17,
2015, affirmed the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas's
summary judgment in favor of P&H Mining Equipment, Inc., in the
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Norman J. Sterling and Laura M.
Sterling.

The case is NORMAN J. STERLING AND LAURA M. STERLING, H/W,
Appellants, v. P&H MINING EQUIPMENT, INC. A/K/A JOY GLOBAL SURFACE
MINING, INC., Appellee, NO. 1006 EDA 2014 (Pa. Super.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/4EisTYfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Stellar" Suit Remanded to Pa. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated April
15, 2015, remanded the asbestos-related lawsuit captioned RITA G.
STELLAR, Personal Representative for the Estate of Frank J.
Schaffer, and MARY SCHAFFER, as Surviving Spouse, Plaintiffs, v.
ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-
05083-ER (E.D. Pa.), to the Northampton County Court of Common
Pleas, after finding that the Plaintiffs' claims involve state law
rights that exist independent of any collective bargaining
agreement.  A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/4wjhwmfrom Leagle.com.

RITA G. STELLAR, Plaintiff, represented by GEORGE A. WEBER, III,
LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC, MICHAEL ALBANESE, LAW OFFICES
OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC & LAMONT G. MCCLURE, JR., LAW OFFICES OF
PETER G. ANGELOS, PC.

MARY SCHAFFER, Plaintiff, represented by GEORGE A. WEBER, III, LAW
OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, PC, MICHAEL ALBANESE, LAW OFFICES OF
PETER G. ANGELOS, PC & LAMONT G. MCCLURE, JR., LAW OFFICES OF
PETER G. ANGELOS, PC.

ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
PETER J. NEESON, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN
S. HOWARTH, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

CARLISLE COMPANY INCORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI
& HANNA, LLP.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN
P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL J.
BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

COLUMBUS MCKINNON CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Claimant,
represented by ADAM A. DESIPIO, DLA PIPER LLP, JENNIFER ANNE
MCGARRITY, DLA Piper LLP & WILLIAM F. KINIRY, JR., DLA PIPER, LLP.

COOPER CROUSE-HINDS, Defendant, represented by TIFFANY GIANGIULIO,
GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH.

CRANE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by G. DANIEL BRUCH, JR.,
SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC.

FERRO ENGINEERING DIVISION OF ON MARINE SERVICES COMPANY NATIONAL
REGISTERED AGENTS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by THERESA M. MULLANEY, Esq. -- tmullaney@kentmcbride.com -- KENT
& MCBRIDE PC.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, represented by LAWRENCE E. CURRIER,
Esq. -- LECurrier@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP & SHARON L.
CAFFREY, Esq. -- SLCaffrey@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP.

FOSECO, INC., Defendant, represented by PENELOPE B. O'CONNELL,
Esq. -- PBO@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON
LLC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by JOHN P. MCSHEA, MCSHEA LAW FIRM PC.

GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
KEVIN J. O'BRIEN, MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY P.C..

GOODRICH CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by
DAWN DEZII, MARGOLIS & EDELSTEIN.

THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant, represented by MARK
DOUGLAS EISLER, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA, P.C..

GREENE, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID C.
WEINBERG, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by LINA M. CARRERAS, Esq. -- lmc@maronmarvel.com --
MARON MARVEL BRADLEY ANDERSON PA & WALTER S. JENKINS, Esq. --
wsj@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY & ANDERSON LLC.

THE KERITE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TIFFANY GIANGIULIO,
Esq. -- giangiuliot@ggmfirm.com -- GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH.

MACK TRUCKS, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN C.
MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON.

MERITOR, INC., Defendant, represented by BARBARA J. BUBA,
WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA.

MORGAN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON.

THE OKONITE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by G. DANIEL BRUCH,
JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC.

P&H MINING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant, represented by JOAN P.
DEPFER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN.

PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA,
LLP.

READING CRANE & ENGINEERING, Defendant, represented by ALAN R.
GRIES, GIBBONS P.C. & JENNIFER SEME, GIBBONS PC.

RSCC WIRE & CABLE, INC., Defendant, represented by TIFFANY
GIANGIULIO, GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH.

SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., Defendant, represented by BARBARA J.
BUBA, WILBRAHAM LAWLER & BUBA.

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by CHRISTINA M. RIDEOUT, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWEN
SPINELLI & HANNA.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by CATHERINE N. JASONS, KELLEY JASONS MCGUIRE SPINELLI HANNA LLP &
ROBERT N. SPINELLI, KELLEY JASONS MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP.

UNIVERSAL REFRACTORIES A DIVISION OF THIEM CORPORATION, Defendant,
Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN J. DUGAN,
SALMON RICCHEZZA SINGER & TURCHI LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Warren Pumps Fails in Bid to Junk "Spells" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois denied Warren Pumps, LLC's motion
for summary judgment filed in the asbestos-related lawsuit
captioned RICHARD SPELLS, JR., Individually and as Administrator
of the Estate of Richard Spells, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-129-SMY-DGW
(S.D. Ill.).  A full-text copy of the memorandum and order dated
April 16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/EmkbRIfrom
Leagle.com.

Richard Spells Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Colleen Miller,
Napoli Bern et al., Daniela Rapisardi, Napoli Bern et al., Eric D.
Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al. & Ryan P. Horace, Napoli Bern, et
al..

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al., Kent L.
Plotner, Heyl, Royster et al., Lisa A. LaConte, Heyl, Royster et
al., Michael D. Schag, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud,
Heyl, Royster et al..

Nash Engineering Co., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Gregory L. Cochran, McKenna Storer & Robert P.
Pisani, McKenna Storer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Ex-Pipefitter's Petitions Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Palladino, Executrix of the Estates of Joseph Reed and Alice
Reed, deceased, petitions for review of the May 2, 2014 order of
the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board that affirmed the decision
and order of the Workers' Compensation Judge.  The WCJ dismissed
Claimant's Review, Modification and Reinstatement Petitions under
the Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation Act because the Claimant
failed to disclose to Allied Signal, Inc., and its successor in
interest Honeywell, Inc., and Travelers Insurance Company the
monetary amount received in a third-party settlement.

On or about July 31, 1985, Joseph Reed filed a Claim Petition
alleging he sustained a work-related occupational disease in the
nature of lung disease, shortness of breath, including, but not
limited to, asbestosis, while in the course and scope of his
employment as a pipe fitter for Allied Signal.  In a Decision and
Order circulated February 18, 2004, the WCJ granted the Claim
Petition after finding that the Employer failed to file a timely
answer.  However, the WCJ suspended benefits as of November 29,
1990, after finding that Joseph Reed failed to follow through on
work that was available to him within his restrictions as of that
date.

In a decision dated April 21, 2015, the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania, affirmed the order of the Board, after finding that
the WCJ did not capriciously disregard evidence and the Claimant's
arguments to the contrary amount to little more than an argument
that the WCJ should have viewed the evidence as the Claimant did.
The WCJ, according to the Commonwealth Court issued a reasoned
decision that contained findings of fact and conclusions of law
based upon the record as a whole and that lucidly explained the
rationale for each credibility determination, finding, and
conclusion.

The case is Joseph Reed, deceased, Donna Palladino, Executor of
the Estates of Joseph Reed and Alice Reed deceased, Petitioners,
v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Allied Signal, Inc. and
it's successor in interest Honeywell, Inc. and Travelers Insurance
Co.), Respondents, NO. 879 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/I7n9oPfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Tolls Time to Perfect Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, on April 16, 2015, issued separate decisions enlarging
to the October 2015 Term the time to perfect appeals in the
following lawsuits:

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to D'ANDRADE, v.
A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1090 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Iv2cknfrom Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to PORTA, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1091 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/V1QZ0Afrom Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to McLAUGHLIN, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1092
(N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/qM4UVcfrom Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to CICHY, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1093 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/drb7Tgfrom Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to BATTIPAGLIA, v.
A.C. & S., INC. -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1094 (N.Y. App. Div.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/FCnaTCfrom Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to HISCHE, v. AIR
& LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1099 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/50pIfKfrom Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to GILL, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1100 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/yBRVS6from Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to VIOHL, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1101 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/AsVGO1from Leagle.com.

   * NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ENGLE, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1103 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/olehydfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Ruling in "Hockler" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated April 21, 2015, vacated an interim
relief granted by order of a Justice of the Court dated March 13,
2013, in the lawsuit styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS
LITIGATION relating to HOCKLER, v. 3M COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-1075
(N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/XfnOqofrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Directed to File Record in NY Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated April 21, 2015, granted leave to
take judicial notice of certain documents attached as exhibits to
the moving papers; directed defendant-appellant to file nine
copies of supplemental record containing the exhibits;
consolidated the appeals; and directed defendant-appellant Crane
Co. to file separate supplemental record containing relevant
notices of appeal.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
ALL NYCAL CASES, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO.,
MOTION NOS. M-975, M-976 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/m1Xw4Tfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Trial Ruling in Texas Suit Ordered Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
At issue before the Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District,
Beaumont, is whether the judge of the 172nd Judicial District
Court of Jefferson County abused his discretion in disregarding
the jury verdict in favor of E.I. Du Pont Nemours and Company and
in granting a new trial in favor of Willis Whisnant's estate and
beneficiaries.  In September 2014, almost six years after the jury
returned its verdict, finding "no" in response to the broad form
negligence question, and after a previous mandamus proceeding and
eventually a remand from the Texas Supreme Court, the trial court
once again granted Whisnant's motion for new trial and ordered a
new trial stating that "[t]he jury's answer to Question 2 as to
[DuPont] is against the great weight and preponderance of the
evidence."

From 1947 through 1986, Mr. Whisnant worked as a pipefitter at
various plants where he alleged he was exposed to airborne
asbestos fibers.  From 1966 through 1975, Mr. Whisnant worked "off
and on" on DuPont's Sabine River Works premises in the course of
his employment with a contractor, B.F. Shaw.

The Court of Appeals has conducted a merits-based mandamus review
of the trial court's articulated reasons for granting the new
trial and concluded in an opinion dated April 23, 2015, that the
record does not support the trial court's rationale for ordering a
new trial.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals held the judge of the
172nd Judicial District Court of Jefferson County abused his
discretion when he granted the motion for new trial, and
conditionally granted mandamus relief.

The Court of Appeals held: "When the trial court's reasons for
granting the motion for new trial are invalid, a remedy by appeal
is inadequate and the relator is entitled to mandamus relief.  We
conditionally grant DuPont's petition for writ of mandamus.  We
are confident that the trial court will vacate its order granting
Whisnant's motion for new trial and enter judgment on the jury's
verdict.  The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to
comply."

The appeals case is IN RE E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, NO.
09-14-00465-CV (Tex. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/rFYWIjfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *